Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00288/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00288-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

Case No. 5:12-cv-00288-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

JENNA COFFEY, et al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

NESTLÉ USA, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-00288-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(Re: Docket No. 27)

 

 Earlier in this case, the court dismissed Plaintiff Jenna Coffey’s claim for restitution/unjust 

enrichment.1

 After observing that the California and other federal courts have divided on the 

viability of such a claim under California law, the court sided with the doubters. The court 

specifically held that “[g]iven that Plaintiffs’ quasi-contract theory rests on the same allegations 

already covered by their other claims, which also provide for restitution as a remedy, the claim is 

‘merely duplicative of statutory or tort claims’ and must be dismissed.”2

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit held otherwise. In Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim.3 

 

1 See Case No. 12-cv-2272-PSG, Docket No. 74 at 20-21. 

2 Id. at 21 (citations omitted). 

3 See Case No. 12-17596, 2015 WL 1600205, at *7 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2015). 

Case 5:14-cv-00288-PSG Document 29 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

Case No. 5:12-cv-00288-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

The Ninth Circuit explained in no uncertain terms that “[t]o the extent the district court concluded 

that the cause of action was nonsensical because it was duplicative of or superfluous to Astiana’s 

other claims, this is not grounds for dismissal.”4

Whatever this court’s own views may be, it fully appreciates that whenever the appellate 

courts say jump, the only remaining question is how high. And so it appears here. Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. No later than April 30, 2015, 

each party may file a brief of up to five pages on the specific issue of whether Astiana requires that 

Plaintiff be allowed to pursue a duplicative claim for unjust enrichment. No hearing shall be held. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 24, 2015 

 ___________________________ 

 PAUL S. GREWAL 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

4 Id. 

Case 5:14-cv-00288-PSG Document 29 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 2