Following Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp. (9th Cir. 2020) 971 F.3d 834, this decision holds that even in a diverity case, a federal court may exercise equitable jurisdiction only if the plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy.  Here, plaintiff’s remedies under the UCL were all equitable, and the federal court lacked equitable jurisdiction over them because the CLRA offered the plaintiff adequate legal remedies of damages and an injunction.  That legal remedy was not rendered inadequate by the fact that plaintiff sued too late so that the statute of limitations barred his CLRA claim.  (See United States v. Elias (9th Cir. 1990) 921 F.2d 870, 874.