Discovery ruling in McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC finds that notice is unnecessary when ordering class member contact information produced

United States Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, as if predicting the very contents of my April 21, 2010 Daily Journal article, ordered Defendants AT & T Mobility LLC, New Cingular Wireless PCS LCC, and New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. to produce the contact information for thousands of customers that had complained after incurring international roaming charges without first issuing a privacy notice.  McArdle v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 2010 WL 1532334 (N.D.Cal. Apr 16, 2010).

Chief Magistrate Judge James said:

As to providing a written notice to the customers, the Court finds such notice unnecessary. First, Pioneer does not impose a notice requirement. Second, notice would make no sense here, as witnesses cannot choose to “opt out” of civil discovery.  Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 2008 WL 3287035, at *3 (N.D.Cal.2008). “Generally, witnesses are not permitted to decline to participate in civil discovery, even when the information sought from them is personal or private.” Puerto v. Superior Court, 158 Cal.App.4th at 1242, 1256-57 (2008). The Court notes that the minimal information Plaintiff requests is indeed contemplated under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as basic to the discovery process. Specifically, Rule 26(a)(1)(A) requires each party to disclose before formal discovery begins “the names, addresses and telephone numbers of each individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.” Here, many of Defendants' complaining customers may be considered percipient witnesses to the relevant issue - international-roaming charges, and could therefore be considered persons having discoverable knowledge and proper subjects of discovery.

Slip op., at 4; see also, Boo-ya, at page bite me.  Defendants were given 14 days to provide the contact information.

“Generally, witnesses are not permitted to decline to participate in civil discovery, even when the information sought from them is personal or private.”  Yes.  Witnesses don't get to opt-out of being witnesses.

in brief: Ninth Circuit joins others in holding that denial of certification does not destroy CAFA jurisdiction

In United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, et al. v. Shell Oil Company (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2010) (say that three times fast), a putative class action alleging various wage & hour violations was removed to federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (CAFA).  Certification was eventually denied.  The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and remanded the matter to state court.  On appeal, the Ninth Circuit joined the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits in holding that denial of class certification does not divest the federal district court of jurisdiction.  The Court recognized the general principles that jurisdiction is evaluated at the time it is invoked, and subsequent developments do not destroy jurisdiction if it was properly invoked originally.  All else equal, this decision should reduce the overall degree of hapiness experienced by district court judges.  Now they can't put an unsuccessful, removed class action out of its misery with a remand bullet to the head.  Thus, federal district courts will have the pleasure of overseeing more individual, state law-based actions.

Judge Patel offers interesting comments about the puzzle of PAGA

United States District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel (Northern District of California) offered some interesting comments, but no clear solutions, to the puzzle posed by litigation of PAGA claims as representative actions.  Ochoa-Hernandez v. Cjaders Foods, Inc.. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010) 2010 WL 1340777.  In the course of denying plaintiff's motion to preclude the defendant from contacting current or former employees about the litigation, the Court said:

From a practical perspective, plaintiff's analogy between class actions and PAGA claims is also misplaced. While both fall within the general category of virtual representation, there are significant differences between the two. Unlike a class action seeking damages or injunctive relief for injured employees, the purpose of PAGA is to incentivize private parties to recover civil penalties for the government that otherwise may not have been assessed and collected by overburdened state enforcement agencies. Id. (“The act's declared purpose is to supplement enforcement actions by public agencies, which lack adequate resources to bring all such actions themselves.”). Unlike class actions, these civil penalties are not meant to compensate unnamed employees because the action is fundamentally a law enforcement action. Moreover, unlike the binding finality of a class action with respect to damages, the individual employee has less at stake in a PAGA representative action: if the employer defeats a PAGA claim, the nonparty employees, because they were not given notice of the action or afforded an opportunity to be heard, are not bound by the judgment as to remedies other than civil penalties. Id. at 987, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 209 P.3d 923. Thus, nonparty employees can bring an action against the employer based on identical facts so long as they do not seek civil penalties. Class members, however, would be bound by a judgment against the class, independent of the remedy later sought.

*5 Class actions litigated in federal court also contain numerous procedural protections that are not available in PAGA claims. Unnamed employees need not be given notice of the PAGA claim, nor do they have the ability to opt-out of the representative PAGA claim. There is no indication that the unnamed plaintiffs can contest a settlement, if any, reached between the parties. The court does not have to approve the named PAGA plaintiff, nor does the court inquire into the adequacy of counsel's ability to represent the unnamed employees. These procedural protections ensure the fidelity of the attorney-client arrangement in a class action. Their absence further militate against considering a PAGA claim akin to a certified class action.

Additionally, in order to bridge the gap between Arias and the creation of an attorney-client relationship, at least two inferential steps are required, and neither is present. First, Arias is silent on what procedures, if not class action procedures, are sufficient to perfect representative status in representative actions. While representative status may accrue once administrative requirements have been satisfied, Arias does not so hold and plaintiff cites no further authority. Second, assuming that representative status is perfected once administrative requirements are satisfied, Arias does not contemplate the practical issue of when, if at all, an attorney-client relationship arises between plaintiff's counsel and the current or former employees.

Slip op., at 4-5.  If it isn't obvious from this long excerpt, the argument up for discussion was whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the absent employees and the attorney for the named plaintiff.  While the Court's comments explain why a PAGA claim is different from a class action, the discussion is not intended to address the case management question posed by PAGA.  Nevertheless, the brief observations by this Court are of interest to practitioners in this area of law.

Conditionally certified FLSA class of United Auto Credit Corporation Supervisors classified as exempt

United States District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte (Northern District of California) granted United Auto Credit Corporation's motion to decertify a class of California-based Supervisor (and related) employees after the class was conditionally certified under the FLSA.  Hernandez v. United Auto Credit Corporaiton (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010) 2010 WL 1337702.  In FLSA actions, many Courts employ a two-phase process for "certification" of FLSA classes, an approach used by the trial court here:

Under the two-step approach, the court first considers whether to certify a collective action and permit notice to be distributed to the putative class members. See Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1102; Russell v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2008 WL 4104212, at *2-3 (N.D.Cal. Sept.3, 2008). At this first stage, the standard for certification is fairly easy to satisfy. Courts have required only “substantial allegations, supported by declarations or discovery, that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.” Russell, 2008 WL 4104212, at *2.

At the second stage, after discovery has been taken, the court may decertify the class if it concludes that the class members are not similarly situated. Id. at *3. The court can consider a number of factors in deciding whether an action should ultimately proceed collectively, including: (1) the disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to the defendant and whether they appear to be individual to each plaintiff; (3) fairness and procedural considerations; and (4) whether plaintiffs made the required filings before filing suit. Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1103. However, a requirement that the class members be identical would be inconsistent with the intent of FLSA's provision that a case can proceed as a collective action. Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 518 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1361 (S.D.Fla.2007).

Slip op., at 2.  The motion filed by the defendant in this case concerned the more rigorous showing required in the second stage.  (Side Note:  The Ninth Circuit has not yet explicitly held that it concurs with the two-stage approach, but District Courts have been employing that approach in the Ninth Circuit for many years without opposition.)

In the course of briefing, the plaintiffs apparently advanced the novel argument that the supervision requirement included in the executive exemption test created a ratio requirement where an employer had to show that there were at least two non-exempt employees for every executive:

Plaintiffs' argument overstates the requirement of the pertinent FSLA regulation. Plaintiffs are correct that in order to qualify for the executive exemption, an employee must “customarily and regularly direct[ ] the work of two or more other employees.” 29 C .F.R. § 541.100(a)(3). The language of the regulation, however, does not require a strict mathematical ratio between an “employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity” and “other employees.” All the regulation requires is that an employee customarily or regularly direct the work of two or more other employees. The other employees whose work the executive directs may or may not themselves be executives. Thus, the FLSA does not create a “ratio requirement.” Whether the present conditional class should be decertified, then, depends on the individualized assessment of whether the class members are “similarly situated.” The court now turns to that inquiry.

Slip op., at 3.  No dice.  Turning to the merits of the motion by defendant, the Court, as did the District Court in Weigele v. Fedex (discussed here), placed little weight on the uniform classification of employees by a central office:  "[T]he recent decision of In re Wells Fargo Homes Mortg. Overtime Litig., 571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.2009), which involved certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), cautions against placing too much weight on an internal policy of classifying all members of a particular class of employees as exempt."  Slip op., at 5.  More importantly, however, the Court discussed the plaintiffs' inability to rebut substantial evidence showing great disparity in the job duties of different Supervisors.

Are there really that many large businesses out there that let their employees do whatever they want?

Breaking News: Supreme Court holds that a corporation's "principal place of business" refers to the place where high level officers direct and control the company

A unanimous United States Supreme Court held today, in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. ____ (February 23, 2010):

The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any Stateby which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business." 28 U. S. C. §1332(c)(1) (emphasis added). We seek here to resolve different inter-pretations that the Circuits have given this phrase. In doing so, we place primary weight upon the need for judicial administration of a jurisdictional statute to remain assimple as possible. And we conclude that the phrase "principal place of business" refers to the place where thecorporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. Lower federal courts have often metaphorically called that place the corporation’s "nerve center."

Opinion, at 1.  In light of this holding, Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F. 3d 495 (9th Cir. 2001) is no longer good law.  The result is likely to be fewer diversity-based suits but more CAFA-based removals for class actions.

Update on 2010-02-23 21:09 by The Complex Litigator

It occurs to me that an amicus filing in support of the plaintiff would be a friend of a Friend.  You see, the amicus filing is also called .... oh nevermind.

Update on 2010-02-23 22:05 by The Complex Litigator

Other media commentary on Hertz v. Friend:

• Court Says Business HQ Is Where Executives Are (ABC News)
• Jurisdiction Hinges On Company's 'Nerve Center' (Courthouse News)
• U.S. top court: Companies are based where execs are (Reuters)

Ninth Circuit holds that a class representative can voluntarily settle individual claims but retain a personal stake sufficient to appeal the denial of class certification

In the last few years, California Courts of Appeal have examined the question of whether an putative class representative can voluntarily settle individual claims while "agreeing" with the defendant that the plaintiff would retain a right to appeal the denial of class certification.  That examination hasn't gone well for plaintiffs:  "The parties' intent cannot compel this court to issue an advisory opinion on issues in which, after the settlement, Larner no longer retains any individual, personal stake."  Larner v. Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1291, 1298 (2008).  However, the Larner Court suggested that, had Larner "reserved any right to shift attorney fees to other class members," she might have retained an interest in the litigation sufficient to support her right to appeal.  Larner, at 1304.

After Larner, the trend continued, and with increasing momentum against plaintiffs.  Watkins v. Wachovia Corp., 172 Cal. App. 4th 1576 (2009) actually criticized Larner: "We believe that it is illogical to import the law governing 'pick off' cases into the context of a voluntary settlement."  Watkins, at 1591.  Watkins bluntly declared, "There are no public policy interests implicated by a settlement voluntarily accepted."  Watkins, at 1591.

The Ninth Circuit had occasion to examine this same issue.  In Narouz v. Charter Communications (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2010), the Court examined "whether the settlement and voluntary dismissal by a class representative of his personal claims in a putative class action lawsuit renders moot his appeal of the denial of class certification."  Slip op., at 1172.  Identifying the issue as one open in the Ninth Circuit, the Court began its analysis with an examination of decisions arising in the context of "involuntary" claim expiration:

The Supreme Court held in Geraghty that when a class representative’s claims expire involuntarily, that representative “retains a ‘personal stake’ in obtaining class certification sufficient” to maintain jurisdiction to appeal a denial of class certification. Id. at 404. The Court reasoned that the class representative maintained at least an interest in spreading litigation costs and shifting fees and expenses to the other litigants with similar claims. Id. at 403; see also Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank, Jackson Miss. v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 334 n.6 (1980).

Slip op., at 1175.  Much like the Larner Court, the Ninth Circuit held:

We hold that when a class representative voluntarily settles his or her individual claims, but specifically retains a personal stake as identified by Geraghty and Roper, he or she retains jurisdiction to appeal the denial of class certification. In so holding, we join several other circuits. See Richards v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 329 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2003); Toms v. Allied Bond & Collection Agency, Inc., 179 F.3d 103 (4th Cir. 1999); Love v. Turlington, 733 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir. 1984).

Slip op. at 1175.  The Court then emphasized that "a class representative cannot release any and all interests he or she may have had in class representation through a private settlement agreement" and still assert the existence of a "personal stake" in the litigation.  Slip op. at 1175.

The Court then briefly criticized the District Court's failure to create a proper record for review when it refused to certify the proposed class for settlement purposes:  "It is clear here that the district court erred in denying class certification without providing any findings or providing any analysis of the Rule 23 factors."  Slip op., at 1179.  The Court succinctly said, "Meaningful appellate review is impossible."  Slip op., at 1179.

There was also a spirited exchange between District Judge Korman (Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation), who concurred in the decision, and Circuit Judge Rymer, who dissented.

California Proposition 8 elicits constitution-based, discovery rights opinion from Ninth Circuit

For those following the complicated twists and turns of litigation over California Ballot Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, the litigation about that measure continues.  Today, the Ninth Circuit, in Perry, et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger (9th Cir. January 4, 2009), issued a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to enter a protective order barring access to internal campaign communications of proponents of the Proposition.  I'm no constitutional law expert, but high-stakes litigation like this tends to create its own complexity, so I simply note the opinion for the constitutional law scholars, fans and practitioners.  I can say that it's not every day that you see discovery limited because it would intrude on the the First Amendment right of freedom to associate.  The one-page appendix to the opinion is also available.

Back to the drawing board: AT&T's arbitration agreement that bans class actions is still unconscionable

It seems to me that the telecommunications and credit card industries are more determined to make an arbitration agreement with a class action ban stick than any other industry.  Most employers have given up that dream, but not the phone company and not the bank.  The latest arbitration agreement with a class action ban comes to us compliments of AT&T Mobility LLC.  But, in Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC (October 27, 2009), the Ninth Circuit sends another class action ban to the unconscionability graveyard, and just in time for Halloween.

Those crazy mad scientists in the secret AT&T Arbitration Agreement Drafting Lab (also known as the "Triple A - DL" to those in the know), their latest scheme to ban class actions was ingenious, and could have helped them take over the world!  The plan was to circumvent the holding of Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., 498 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007) with a little bonus payment clause:

[T]he phone company points to a new wrinkle: unlike the arbitration clause in Shroyer, this arbitration clause provides for a “premium” payment of $7,500 (the jurisdictional limit of California’s small claims court) if the arbitrator awards the customer an amount greater than the phone company’s last written settlement offer made before selection of an arbitrator. Hence, says the phone company, the arbitration clause is not an artifice that has the practical effect of rendering it immune from individual claims.

Slip op., at 14391.  The Ninth Circuit disagreed, and shot down a preemption argument along the way:

We will find, on second blush, the new “premium” payment does not distinguish this case from Shroyer, and that under California law, the present arbitration clause is unconscionable and unenforcable [sic]. Further, we will also find no merit to the phone company’s claim the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California unconscionability law.

Slip op., at 14391.  Back to the Triple A - DL, Snidely.  For those not satisfied with just the holding, the Court's analysis relied heavily on Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148 (2005):

The California Supreme Court addressed the unconscionability of class action waivers in arbitration agreements for the first time in Discover Bank v. Sup. Ct., 113 P.3d 1100 (Cal. 2005), holding that class action waivers were at least sometimes unconscionable under California law. 113 P.3d at 1108. Class actions, the court reasoned, serve the important policy function of deterring and redressing wrongdoing, particularly where a company defrauds large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money. Id. at 1105. Class action waivers pose a problem because, “small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.” Id. at 1106. In this way, the class action waiver allows the company to insulate itself from liability for its wrongdoing and the policy behind class actions is thwarted. Id. at 1109.

Slip op., at 14394.  The Court then explained how it interpreted the test in Discover Bank:

We have interpreted Discover Bank as creating a three-part test to determine whether a class action waiver in a consumer contract is unconscionable: (1) is the agreement a contract of adhesion; (2) are disputes between the contracting parties likely to involve small amounts of damages; and (3) is it alleged that the party with superior bargaining power has carried out a scheme deliberately to cheat large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money. Id. at 983. In Shroyer, we noted that “there are most certainly circumstances in which a class action waiver is unconscionable under California law despite the fact that all three parts of the Discover Bank test are not satisfied.” Id. Because we hold that the class action waiver at issue satisfies all three parts of the test, as was true in Shroyer, “it is unnecessary to explore those circumstances here.” Id.

Slip op., at 14395.  The application of the Discover Bank test tracks Shroyer.  The Court then disposed of AT&T's contention that the promise of a premium payment distinguished this agreement from Shroyer:

The $7,500 premium payment is available only if AT&T does not make a settlement offer to the aggrieved customer in a sum equal to or higher than is ultimately awarded in arbitration, and before an arbitrator is selected. This means that if a customer files for arbitration against AT&T, predictably, AT&T will simply pay the face value of the claim before the selection of an arbitrator to avoid potentially paying $7,500. Thus, the maximum gain to a customer for the hassle of arbitrating a $30.22 dispute is still just $30.22. We held in Shroyer that a claim worth a few hundred dollars did not provide adequate incentive for a customer to bother pursuing individual arbitration. 498 F.3d at 986. The $30.22 at issue here is even less of an incentive to file a claim. As a result, aggrieved customers will predictably not file claims—even if the odds are that after the letter-writing and arbitrator-choosing, they will get a $30.22 offer—thereby “greatly reduc[ing] the aggregate liability” AT&T faces for allegedly mulcting small sums of money from many consumers. See id. The premium payment provision has no effect on this conclusion, nor do any of the other provisions of AT&T’s revised arbitration clause. The actual damages a customer will recover remain predictably small, thus under the rationale of Discover Bank and Shroyer, AT&T’s class action waiver is in effect an exculpatory clause, hence substantively unconscionable.

Slip op., at 14397-98.  I'll spare you any excerpts from the preemption discussion.  It's sufficient to say that the Court was impressed with a repeat of arguments rejected in Shroyer.

In Cartwright, et al., v. Viking Industries, Inc., District Court certifies consumer class action claims under UCL, CLRA, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment theories

On September 11, 2009, the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, issued a substantial class certification opinion in Cartwright, et al. v. Viking Industries, Inc. Cartwright is a consumer class action alleging that certain Viking windows are defective, allowing water and air intrusion into homes. The suit alleged claims for Strict Products Liability, Negligence, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Fraudulent Concealment, and Restitution.

The District Court ultimately certified a class for the following claims: CLRA, UCL, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment. The District Court denied certification of strict liability and negligence claims. In a thorough opinion that emphasizes a number of pro-consumer certification decisions, the Court certified fraudulent concealment claims by allowing a presumption of reliance. The Court's analysis is as interesting for what it does not cite as for what it does cite. Tobacco II is not mentioned. But the Court does cite Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 254 F.R.D. 610 (C.D. Cal. 2008), which is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit following a 23(f) Petition for Permission to Appeal, and Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Corp., 223 F.R.D. 524, 526-27 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

The Opinion also cites to some principles of federal certification that may be surprising to practitioners that rarely venture outside of California's Superior Court. For instance, the Court notes that evidence inadmissible at trial, and, in particular, expert testimony, may be considered as part of a certification decision. "'On a motion for class certification, the court may consider evidence that may not be admissible at trial.'" Order, citing Mazza, 254 F.R.D. at 616 (citing, in turn, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974)). "'[R]obust gatekeeping of expert evidence is not required; rather, the court should ask only if expert evidence is "useful in evaluating whether class certification requirements have been met."' Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 240 F.R.D. 627, 635 (N.D. Cal. 2007)."

Now let's see if the acrobat.com embed object will display here:

If you don't see the flash object above, you can directly download the Order. Thanks to Mark Moore for the tip.