9th Circuit vacates remand order in Luxottica false-ad case, saying the company must first get…
Velasquez v. Luxottica of America Inc.
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit vacates remand order in Luxottica false-ad case, saying the company must first get a chance to waive a key legal objection before the case goes back to state court.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order sending Melissa Velasquez's false advertising class action against Luxottica back to California state court. The appeals court found the district court had not followed a recent Ninth Circuit ruling that requires federal judges to give a removing defendant the chance to waive the 'adequate remedy at law' objection before remanding for lack of equitable jurisdiction. The case was sent back to the district court to apply that new standard.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Melissa Velasquez and Luxottica of America, but it also matters more broadly to any business or consumer plaintiff involved in a class action that has been removed to federal court and involves claims for restitution or other equitable relief under California consumer protection laws.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 16, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 16, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 16, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Melissa Velasquez filed a class action lawsuit in California state court against Luxottica of America, the eyewear company, alleging unfair competition and false advertising. She sought public injunctive relief and restitution. Luxottica removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, but Velasquez asked the federal court to send it back to state court. The federal district court agreed to remand on two grounds. First, it found Velasquez lacked standing because she did not allege an actual or imminent threat of future injury, which is required to seek public injunctive relief in federal court. Second, it found it could not award restitution because Velasquez had not alleged she lacked an adequate remedy at law, which is a requirement for courts to exercise equitable jurisdiction. After the district court ruled, the Ninth Circuit issued a new decision called Ruiz v. Bradford Exchange. That decision clarified that while district courts can remand a case for lack of equitable jurisdiction, they must first give the party that removed the case an opportunity to waive the adequate-remedy-at-law objection. If the defendant waives that objection, the court may be able to proceed with the equitable claim. Because the district court did not have the benefit of Ruiz when it ruled, the Ninth Circuit vacated its order and sent the case back so the district court can now follow the Ruiz procedure. That means Luxottica must be given the chance to decide whether to waive the adequate-remedy-at-law objection before any further remand decision is made. The panel did not address the standing issue in its ruling. There was no noted dissent.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELISSA VELASQUEZ, on behalf of No. 25-1258 herself, all others similarly situated, and the D.C. No. general public, 2:25-cv-00074-MCS-PVC Plaintiff - Appellee, MEMORANDUM* v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 6, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON, SANCHEZ, and TUNG, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Luxottica of America Inc. (Luxottica) appeals the district court’s order granting the motion to remand filed by Plaintiff-Appellee Melissa Velasquez (Velasquez). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Velasquez filed a class action complaint in state court alleging unfair competition and false advertising by Luxottica. Velasquez sought only public injunctive relief and restitution. Luxottica removed the action to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). Velasquez subsequently filed a motion to remand the case to state court. The district court agreed with Velasquez that she lacked standing due to her failure to allege an actual or imminent threat of future injury. Rather, Velasquez sought public injunctive relief, which the court could not award under the claim as pled. The district court also agreed that it lacked equitable jurisdiction to award restitution, because Velasquez did not allege that she lacked an adequate remedy at law. Because it could not provide the relief requested by Velasquez, the district court granted Velasquez’s motion to remand to state court. At the time of its ruling, the district court did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Ruiz v. Bradford Exch., Ltd., 153 F.4th 907 (9th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 224 L.Ed.2d 528 (Apr. 27, 2026). In Ruiz, we held that “district courts are empowered to remand a removed case to state court for lack of equitable jurisdiction, but only after the removing defendant is given the opportunity to waive the adequate-remedy-at-law objection.” Id. at 909. Therefore, we remand for the district court to follow Ruiz, and provide Luxottica an opportunity “to waive the adequate-remedy-at-law objection.” Id. at 909, 918. 2 25-1258 VACATED and REMANDED. 3 25-1258
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.