[brief] The issue of “public injunctive relief” in the context of arbitration originally arose in the California state and federal courts, see McGill, supra.  [...], which operates numerous health clubs in California, specifically incorporated provisions relating to “public injunctive relief” into its arbitration agreement in response to these legal developments (as presumably many other businesses operating in California did).  v. [...], 2 Cal. 5th at 955.  In this respect, “private injunctive relief” offers relief to a particular class of persons, such as current or former health club members, as opposed to the general public at large.  See e.g. Hodges v. [...], 12 F.4th 1108, 1115 (9th Cir. 2021) (“when the injunctive relief being sought is for the benefit of a discrete class of persons, or would require consideration of the private rights and obligations of individual non-parties, it has been held to be private injunctive relief”).  As such, in Beture, the New Jersey federal district court held that the purchasers of “defective” [...] smartphones were seeking “private injunctive relief” rather than “public injunctive relief” because they were “principally focused on rectifying individual wrongs” on behalf of plaintiffs themselves and a discrete class of similarly situated persons (i.e., the relief would primarily benefit the discrete class members who purchased defective phones and suffered actual harm by requiring [...] to “correct, replace or otherwise rectify” the phones, and, at best, would incidentally benefit potential future purchasers of [...] smartphones who had not suffered any harm).  See Beture v. [...] Elecs. Am., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121801, at * 28.  Other courts outside New Jersey have likewise drawn the same distinctions: - Grigorian v. [...], 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71375, * 10 (C.D. Cal. April 17, 2024) (putative class action filed on behalf of credit card applicants and customers of Armenian descent did not seek “public injunctive relief” because the relief stood to primarily benefit “presumed Armenian applicants and credit card holders” and would only “incidentally benefit the public” in the form of potentially curbing discrimination against future potential Armenian applicants and customers who have not been harmed); - *Netzel v. [...]*, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135427, * 10 (D. Ariz. August 3, 2023) (former employees of [...] who asserted employment discrimination claims were not seeking “public injunctive relief” in order to “prohibit[] unlawful acts that threaten the general public with future injury” but were rather seeking “to redress their specific injuries and injuries to a group of individuals similarly situated to [them]”); - *Hodges v. [...]*, 12 F.4th at 1121 (putative class action filed on behalf of consumer cable customers did not seek “public injunctive relief” because the relief sought was primarily intended to benefit Comcast “cable subscribers,” as “[t]here [was] simply no sense in which this relief could be said to primarily benefit the general public as a more diffuse whole”) (*emphasis in original*); - *Capriole v. [...]*, 7 F.4th 854, 871-72 (9th Cir. 2021) (“the district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs’ requested relief is not one for ‘public injunctive relief’…the relief sought by plaintiffs—to ‘enjoin Uber from misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors, thus entitling them to the protections of Massachusetts wage laws, including paid sick leave’—is overwhelmingly directed at plaintiffs and other rideshare drivers…[t]he public health implications of paid sick leave, which would not even begin to accrue for months, only benefit the general public incidentally”); - *Torrecillas v. [...]*, 52 Cal.App.5th 485, 499 (Cal. 2020) (prayer for injunctive relief was “private in nature” because the “beneficiary of an injunction would be [plaintiff] and possibly [defendant’s] current employees, not the public at large”); and, - *Kilgore v. [...]*, 718 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2013) (students who sought to enjoin a bank and loan servicer from reporting loan defaults to credit agencies and from enforcing notes against former students were seeking “private” rather “public” injunctive relief, reasoning that the “requested prohibitions against reporting defaults on the Note and seeking enforcement of the Note plainly would benefit only the approximately 120 putative class members”).