SEVIDAL v. Target Corp.
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Sevidal purchased three items from Target.com misrepresented as Made in the USA and sued Target for UCL, FAL, CLRA, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.
- Sevidal sought class certification for California consumers who purchased imported items mislabeled as Made in USA.
- Target argued the class was not ascertainable, overbroad, and that common questions did not predominate due to individualized reliance and exposure.
- Tobacco II clarified standing for class members under UCL, limiting reliance proofs to named plaintiffs, affecting certification analyses.
- Target presented evidence that most customers never viewed the country-of-origin information on Target.com, undermining ascertainability and class-wide injury.
- The trial court denied certification; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the class was not ascertainable and overbroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of the proposed class | Sevidal argues class is ascertainable via Target records identifying mislabeling items. | Target contends records do not identify customers or times of mislabeling; class unascertainable. | Class not ascertainable; affirmed. |
| Overbreadth of the proposed class | Pfizer/Tobacco II logic supports restitution for absent class members based on broader UCL relief. | Many purchasers were never exposed to the mislabeling and thus not entitled to relief; class too broad. | Class overbroad; affirmed. |
| Predominance and common questions under UCL/FAL | Common questions predominate due to uniform mislabeling practices and Tobacco II allowing absent-member relief. | Individual exposure and causation issues predominate; reliance varies among class members. | Predominance not shown; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. Supreme Court 2009) (standing limits for class members under UCL; reliance for unnamed members not required)
- Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.4th 622 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (majority not exposed to misrepresentation cannot recover under 17203)
- Tobacco II, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. Supreme Court 2009) (provides framework for UCL class actions and reliance; distinguishes absent-class-member proof)
- Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank, 81 Cal.App.4th 816 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2000) (community of interest factors for class certification)
- Global Minerals & Metals Corp. v. Superior Court, 113 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003) (ascertainability defined; objective class description required)
- Lee v. Dynamex, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 1325 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008) (records necessary to identify class members; particular context)
- Aguiar v. No. 2, 144 Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2006) (records method for identifying class members; exceptions when no duty to maintain records)
- Steroid Hormone Product Cases, 181 Cal.App.4th 145 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2010) (restitution analysis post-Tobacco II for CLRA/UCL where injury is complex)
- Collins v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 187 Cal.App.3d 62 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1986) (Collins discussed in Tobacco II context on class-based relief)