Bruno v. Eckhart Corp.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30873
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- This case concerns a motion to decertify a nationwide class or reconsider the class certification order in a California UCL/FAL/CLRA and warranty action.
- Plaintiff Kelley Bruno sued Defendants Tischon Corporation and Quten Research Institute LLC for misrepresentations about a liquid product’s absorption and effectiveness.
- The Court previously certified a nationwide class under California law applying a governmental interest test, finding California law could govern the class claims.
- Defendants rely on Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co. as a material change in the law to argue decertification; the Court disagrees.
- The Court analyzes California choice-of-law rules (California Supreme Court) and CAFA’s purpose, ultimately denying the motion to decertify or reconsider.
- The disposition states Mazza did not alter California choice-of-law rules or authority, and Mazza is distinguishable here; thus the class certification remains intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mazza constitutes a material change in the law. | Bruno argues Mazza does not mandate decertification. | Mazza represents a material change that requires decertification. | Mazza is not a material change; decertification denied. |
| Whether California choice-of-law burden remains on the defendant after Mazza. | Bruno contends California burden remains on defendants. | Mazza would shift or affect burden. | California burden remains on defendant; Mazza does not alter that rule. |
| Whether Mazza is distinguishable to justify continuing application of California law to a nationwide class. | Bruno supports continued California-law application based on case facts. | Mazza is controlling and would defeat nationwide-class certification. | Mazza is distinguishable; non-decertification remains appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington Mutual Bank, FA v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 906 (Cal. 2001) (California choice-of-law burden on defendant; governmental interest test is case-specific)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal.4th 95 (Cal. 2006) (case-specific choice-of-law analysis under California law)
- Pokorny v. Quixtar, Inc., 601 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (requires material differences in state law on the facts of the case)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (held each class member’s claim governed by jurisdiction where the transaction occurred; used in CA choice-of-law context)
- Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, 280 F.R.D. 524 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (applied California choice-of-law rules to nationwide class; cited by the court)
- In re MDC Holdings Securities Litigation, 754 F. Supp. 785 (S.D. Cal. 1990) (applied California law to nationwide class where defendant failed to show material conflicts)
- In re Seagate Technologies Sec. Litigation, 115 F.R.D. 264 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (applied California law to nationwide class when conflicts unsatisfied)
- Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field, 311 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1940) (principle that highest state court is final authority on state law)