Amans

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW AMANS, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03577-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

v. Re: Dkt. No.

TESLA, INC.,

Defendant.

The motion to dismiss is denied with respect to the breach of contract claim for specific performance and damages but granted as to the breach of contract claim for restitution. The motion is additionally granted as to the claims under the Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business & Professions Code § 7160, and Truth in Lending Act. 1. Mootness. Tesla argues Malek’s claims are moot because it already installed his roof at the original contract price. Yet Malek plausibly alleges that he was charged an additional $10,500 (at least). The parties offer competing explanations for this charge. Tesla argues that the $10,500 was for a Powerwall not included in the original contract. Malek counters that Tesla charged for the Powerwall only after purporting to return to his original price. Given this dispute, there is the possibility of effective relief: a refund of $10,500. See Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455, 461 (9th Cir. 2006). As such,…