SEVIDAL v. Target Corp.
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Sevidal bought three Target.com items labeled Made in the USA, later found to be manufactured outside the United States.
- Sevidal brought a class action alleging UCL, FAL, CLRA, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment, seeking injunctive relief and restitution for California consumers who bought misidentified imported items.
- Target moved to deny class certification on ascertainability, overbreadth, and predominance; Tobacco II later refined standing for unnamed class members but not ascertainability.
- Target presented evidence on Target.com’s user interface and the rare exposure to the country-of-origin information; a hardware bug and later code fixes allegedly caused mislabeled items, with limited historical data.
- The trial court denied certification, finding the class not ascertainable and overbroad; Sevidal appealed, and the appellate court affirmed, focusing on ascertainability and exposure issues.
- Key issue: whether absent class members could recover restitution under the UCL/FAL without individualized proof of exposure or reliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of the proposed class | Sevidal: class defined by objective criteria; some records identify mislabeling; readily identifiable. | Target: records do not identify individuals who purchased mislabeled items; substantial effort would be required. | Class not ascertainable; trial court did not err. |
| Overbreadth of the proposed class | Pfizer/Tobacco II permit broader relief for unnamed class members without individualized reliance. | Many purchasers never viewed the mislabeling and thus were not harmed; class too broad. | Class overbroad; many members could not recover. |
| Predominance and reliance in UCL/FAL claims | Tobacco II allows class treatment without individualized reliance proof for UCL/FAL losses. | Because most members were never exposed, common questions do not predominate; individualized issues remain. | Predominance lacking; improper for class certification. |
| Impact of CLRA and fraud claims on certification | If claims could be certified, CLRA/fraud could proceed on a class basis. | Reliance/causation issues would prevent class treatment; equitable relief insufficient for absent class members. | Courts would deny class treatment for these claims due to individual reliance/causation issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (limits standing to named plaintiffs but allows absent class members relief under UCL/FAL; requires ascertainability)
- Pfizer, Inc. v. Superior Court, 182 Cal. App. 4th 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (class overbreadth where many members not exposed to misrepresentation; restitution requires loss may have been acquired)
- Weinstat v. Dentsply Internat., Inc., 180 Cal. App. 4th 1213 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (reliance requirement discussed in context of UCL/class certification)
- Steroid Hormone Product Cases, 181 Cal. App. 4th 145 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (classes and causation under CLRA/UCL; absence of injury considerations for some members)
- Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (reaffirmed Tobacco II standing framework and class certification principles)
- Global Minerals & Metals Corp. v. Superior Court, 113 Cal. App. 4th 836 (Cal. App. 2003) (ascertainability defined by objective criteria and records-based identification)
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co., 23 Cal. 4th 429 (Cal. 2000) (core community of interest factors for class certification)
- Collins v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 187 Cal. App. 3d 62 (Cal. App. 1986) (illustrates the need for ascertainability when products may be contaminated or defective)
- Aguiar v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 144 Cal. App. 4th 121 (Cal. App. 2006) (records access issues and ability to identify class members not always required)
- Lee v. Dynamex, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1325 (Cal. App. 2008) (records-based ascertainability; subclasses as a tool)
- Bomersheim v. Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, 184 Cal. App. 4th 1483 (Cal. App. 2010) (ascertainability and class definition precision considerations)