222 F. Supp. 3d 885
S.D. Cal.2016Background
- Deluxe (Defendant) sells and ships bank checks via deluxe.com and other branded sites; Plaintiffs allege Deluxe charged inflated shipping/handling fees (e.g., $8 basic, $32.45 four-day, $49.60 next-day) not tied to actual costs.
- Named plaintiffs (CA, IL, MO, MA residents) paid varying shipping fees on orders placed through banks or deluxe.com; Plaintiffs allege Deluxe charges more for the same service on its Deluxe site than on other brand sites using the same fulfillment channels.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative nationwide class action asserting violations of state consumer-protection laws (California UCL & CLRA, Illinois ICFA, Missouri MMPA, Massachusetts Ch. 93A, and similar laws).
- Two plaintiffs had previously litigated similar claims in the Eastern District of Missouri, dismissed without prejudice; they then refiled (adding CA and MA plaintiffs) in the Southern District of California. Deluxe moved to transfer venue back to Missouri and moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The court: (1) denied transfer to Missouri; (2) found Article III standing for monetary claims but dismissed injunctive-relief claims for lack of alleged imminent future injury (with leave to amend); (3) granted dismissal in part for one CLRA unconscionability theory (Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(19)) with leave to amend; and (4) otherwise denied Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on the pleaded statutory claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for monetary injury | Plaintiffs: paid allegedly inflated shipping fees; lost money; ergo concrete injury | Deluxe: injury not concrete or sufficiently traceable; banks set prices; some alleged fees weren’t paid by named plaintiffs | Court: monetary loss is a concrete injury; causation plausibly pleaded; standing for monetary claims sustained |
| Standing to raise claims under other states’ laws / for unpurchased fee tiers | Plaintiffs: classwide claims based on substantially similar products/services; typicality/adequacy resolved at class stage | Deluxe: named plaintiffs lack state-specific injuries for other states/fee tiers; seek dismissal for lack of standing | Court: adopted discretionary approach favoring preservation of class claims here; denied dismissal on standing grounds for absent-class-member claims |
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Plaintiffs: injunctive relief appropriate for consumer protection class even without intent to repurchase | Deluxe: plaintiffs lack a real/immediate threat of repeated injury; must plead future intent | Court: follows Ninth Circuit precedent requiring imminent future injury; injunctive claims dismissed with leave to amend |
| Failure to state a claim (UCL, CLRA, ICFA, MMPA, Ch.93A) | Plaintiffs: allegations that shipping charges are excessive, deceptive, and violate public policy/statutory prohibitions suffice at pleading stage | Deluxe: charges were disclosed; website not deceptive; no unlawful/unfair conduct; some CLRA claims (unconscionability) inadequately pleaded | Court: denied dismissal as to UCL (unlawful, unfair, fraudulent), ICFA, MMPA, Ch.93A, and CLRA misrepresentation theories; granted dismissal only as to CLRA §1770(a)(19) unconscionability claim for lack of factual allegations, with leave to amend |
| Transfer of venue to Eastern District of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) | Plaintiffs: California forum is appropriate (one named CA plaintiff), transfer unnecessary; forum shopping allegation overstated | Deluxe: Missouri more convenient (prior litigation there, witnesses/parties closer), alleged forum shopping | Court: plaintiffs’ choice entitled to some weight; most private/public factors do not clearly favor transfer; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (concreteness requirement for Article III injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (three elements of Article III standing)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (deceptiveness usually a question of fact not resolved on dismissals)
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (relation of class certification issues to Article III)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (purpose of §1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) (weight of plaintiff’s choice of forum in class actions)