241 F. Supp. 3d 264
D. Mass.2017Background
- Plaintiff Judith Monteferrante alleges Williams‑Sonoma recorded customers’ ZIP codes at checkout in Massachusetts (not required by issuer), used that data to identify home addresses, and sent unwanted marketing mailings.
- She filed a putative class action seeking to represent persons whose ZIP codes were recorded and who received marketing materials from April 15, 2009 to the present, asserting violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 105(a) (Chapter 93A) and unjust enrichment.
- Defendant moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and Rule 23(d) to strike the class allegations as overbroad because the class includes members with time‑barred claims.
- The statutory limitations: Chapter 93A claims—four years; unjust enrichment claims—three years (treated as tort claims here).
- The court analyzed accrual (when claimable injury occurs), the discovery rule, and the continuing‑violation doctrine, and relied on prior Brenner v. Williams‑Sonoma decisions addressing accrual upon receipt of first unwanted mailing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the putative class definition is overbroad because it includes time‑barred claims | Class members’ claims are timely because each subsequent mailing restarts the limitations period (restarts the clock) | Limitations accrue on the date the ZIP code was taken or at least when the class member first received a mailing; class as defined includes members whose first mailing was outside the limitations period | Class definition is facially overbroad and may be struck because it plainly includes members with time‑barred claims; class allegations struck without prejudice |
| When Chapter 93A claims based on § 105(a) accrue | Accrual is tolled until a consumer reasonably knows the unlawful use caused harm; repeated mailings restart accrual | Accrual occurs when the consumer suffers a distinct injury—i.e., when she first receives unwanted marketing sent using the unlawfully obtained data; repeated mailings are continuing harm, not new violations | Accrual occurs at receipt of the first unwanted mailing; repeated mailings are continuing injuries that do not restart the limitations period |
| Whether repeated mailings constitute a continuing violation that restarts the statute of limitations | Each mailing is a separate unlawful act that renews the limitations period | Subsequent mailings are consequences of the original unlawful collection and thus are not new violations | Subsequent mailings are not standalone violations for limitations purposes; continuing‑violation doctrine does not apply to restart the clock |
| Accrual of unjust enrichment claims based on § 105(a) violations | Accrual can be when the defendant uses the information for profit (e.g., first mailing); discovery may delay accrual until use is discovered | Accrual may be when ZIP was recorded or when mailings began; class includes members whose first mailing predates limitations period | Unjust enrichment accrues when defendant begins using the data for economic gain (e.g., first mailing); class that includes those whose first mailing predates the limitations period is overbroad |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. Boston Medical Center Corp., 725 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013) (courts should exercise caution before striking class allegations at pleading stage)
- Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 2011) (Rule 12(f) deletion of class claims discussed)
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (court may delete class allegations when plaintiffs cannot possibly prove the deleted portion)
- Tyler v. Michael's Stores, Inc., 984 N.E.2d 737 (Mass. 2013) (ZIP code combined with name constitutes personal identification information under § 105)
- Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc., 991 F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1993) (Chapter 93A claim accrues when injury results from the unfair act)
- Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179 (1st Cir. 1989) (distinguishing discrete unlawful acts from subsequent consequences for continuing‑violation analysis)