292 F.R.D. 652
D. Kan.2013Background
- Plaintiffs in three California state cases allege Chevron sells motor fuel at retail by the gallon without disclosing or adjusting for temperature, causing injury by mispricing energy content; they seek class-wide damages and injunctive relief under CLRA, UCL, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
- Plaintiffs request certification of two class structures under Rule 23: (a) a consumer class for CLRA and (b) a broader class of individuals/entities for the other claims, modeled after Kansas multidistrict litigation.
- Chevron is a defendant in all three California actions; the court severed Chevron’s claims and stayed proceedings against non-settling defendants; this order concerns only Chevron.
- The court reviews standing (Article III and UCL statutory standing) and Rule 23 prerequisites, emphasizing a rigorous analysis and that merits considerations may inform certification but not dictate merits rulings.
- The court adopts an issue-class framework under Rule 23(c)(4), certifying liability issues for Chevron’s alleged conduct and bifurcating damages for later phases; the injunction-focused Phase I will address injunctive relief, with Phase II potentially addressing damages.
- The court certifies two classes for Chevron: (i) a CLRA consumer class and (ii) a class of individuals/entities for the remaining claims, with liability/injunctive aspects certified under Rule 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2) respectively; damages will be addressed in a separate phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing viability | Rushing lacks standing challenges failed; class members have injury in fact from uniform misrepresentation. | Chevron argues class includes members lacking standing; Rushing’s Telles California purchase supports standing. | Article III standing shown; UCL standing satisfied for named plaintiffs. |
| Rule 23(a) prerequisites | Commonality, typicality, numerosity and adequacy shown given uniform injury and conduct. | Chevron attacks commonality/typicality and adequacy due to class heterogeneity and potential conflicts. | Rule 23(a) satisfied for proposed liability/injunctive classes. |
| Rule 23(b) framework | Bifurcate liability (b(3)/e(4)) and injunctive relief (b(2)); class treatment efficient for liability, damages severable. | Dukes limits b(2) with monetary damages; certification must fit statutory structure. | Permits b(2) injunctive class and b(3)/(e)(4) liability class; damages phased separately. |
| Liability issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4) | Liability questions can be resolved for the class without individualized inquiries. | Liability issues may be too intertwined with damages or require individualized proof. | Liability issues appropriate for Rule 23(c)(4) certification. |
| Commonality of elements for claims | Common questions exist for breach, unjust enrichment, UCL and CLRA due to uniform conduct. | Might require individualized proof for some elements. | Common questions predominate for liability/injunctive relief; class-wide proof feasible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis; predominance required; no per se class entitlement for damages under (b)(2))
- Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (U.S. 2013) (merits may be considered to the extent relevant to Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Falcon v. General Motors Corp., 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (commonality and representative questions framework)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (California standing and actual reliance for UCL fraud prong; materiality supports class-wide proof)
- In re Motor Fuel Temp. Sales Practices Litig., 279 F.R.D. 598 (D.Kan. 2012) (certification of overlapping classes in Kansas motor fuel price cases)
- Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 202 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Cal. App. 2012) (importance of consumer expectations and common proof in California gas pricing cases)
- In re Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. App. 2010) (common questions sufficient where misrepresentation exposure is pervasive)
- Maz na v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (overbreadth concerns in class certification (mass advertising context))