Boundas v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.
280 F.R.D. 408
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Putative class action in Illinois against Abercrombie & Fitch for breach of contract and OCSPA claims; court dismissed OCSPA due to non-Ohio consumers and lack of Ohio connection, and denied remand after CAFA analysis.
- Abercrombie removed to federal court under CAFA seeking nationwide scope; $5 million CAFA threshold discussed in prior rulings.
- Plaintiffs moved for class certification of contract claims; proposed nationwide class includes holders of 2009 winter gift cards stating no expiration that Abercrombie voided on/after Jan 30, 2010.
- Boundas and Stojka were originally proposed as class representatives; court allowed only Boundas as representative after dismissing Stojka’s claims due to adequacy concerns.
- Promotional gift cards.read: cards carried an expiration in the sleeve; in practice, cards were voided by Abercrombie on Jan 30, 2010, wiping remaining value.
- Court grants class certification, modifies class definition to Boundas as representative, and outlines key issues and damages framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 23(a) satisfaction for certification | Boundas shows typicality and commonality; class-wide issues predominate. | There may be individualized issues regarding contract formation and terms. | Rule 23(a) satisfied for certification (Boundas representative) and common questions predominate. |
| Commonality and form contract interpretation | Cards, sleeves, and their terms create uniform contract interpretation. | Variations in how customers learned of promotion could affect contract terms. | Contracts formed uniformly; card and sleeve terms can be resolved class-wide. |
| Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance and Superiority | Predominant issues are contract formation and terms; damages are uniform. | Potential defenses and individual reliance issues could overwhelm class. | Predominance and superiority satisfied; class action appropriate. |
| Ascertainability and notice | Class definable by objective criteria; notice can be managed (including publication). | Identities not in Abercrombie records hinder notice. | Class ascertainable; notice by publication acceptable where individual notice infeasible. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Motorola Sec. Litig., 644 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.2011) ( authority on modifying class definitions and litigation progress)
- Powers v. Hamilton Cnty. Pub. Defender Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592 (6th Cir.2007) (district courts’ discretion to modify class definitions)
- Spano v. Boeing Co., 633 F.3d 574 (7th Cir.2011) (standard for predominance and class certification)
- Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir.2006) (ascertainability and class definability guidance)
- Retired Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chi, 7 F.3d 584 (7th Cir.1993) (overview of Rule 23 adequacy and commonality)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (class certification analysis, commonality and manageability)
- Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Allen, 600 F.3d 813 (7th Cir.2010) (avoidance of merits overlap in certification)
- Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883 (7th Cir.2011) (predominance analysis and common questions)
- Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 547 F.3d 742 (7th Cir.2008) (caution in certifying class; overlap with merits)
- Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589 (7th Cir.1998) (form contract interpretation facilitating class treatment)
- Kleiner v. First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 97 F.R.D. 683 (N.D. Ga.1983) (early authority on form contract class actions)
- BPI Energy Holdings, Inc. v. IEC (Montgomery), LLC, 664 F.3d 131 (7th Cir.2011) (contract terms intrinsic to class claims)
- Nat’l Prod. Workers Union Ins. Trust v. Cigna Corp., 665 F.3d 897 (7th Cir.2011) (mutual assent and contract formation standard)
- 216 Jam., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co., 540 F.3d 433 (6th Cir.2008) (class action commonality and predominance principles)
- In re Aqua Dots Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir.2011) (notice and predominance considerations in mass actions)
- Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp., 356 F.3d 781 (7th Cir.2004) (notice and class action procedures)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice considerations for class actions)