Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp.
655 F.3d 1013
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ticketmaster operates ticketmaster.com; Entertainment Rewards (ER) is an online coupon program operated by EPI, formerly affiliated with Ticketmaster and IAC.
- ER charges a monthly membership after a 30-day free trial and enrolls users via a landing page after clicking an ER ad on Ticketmaster's confirmation page.
- Data pass transfers the consumer's card information from Ticketmaster to EPI automatically after signup, with no further notification to the consumer.
- Alleged deceptive practices allegedly lull users into enrolling in ER and incurring recurring charges, with charges billed to credit/debit cards or bank accounts.
- Plaintiffs seek class certification for claims under California UCL, CLRA, and EFTA; district court denied class certification for UCL and EFTA, and dismissed CLRA claims in Mancini/Stearns while Johnson was only partially addressed on duplicative theories.
- Facts are drawn from district court orders and focus on the alleged misrepresentations/omissions, the data pass mechanism, and the breadth of the proposed class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying class certification for the UCL claim. | Mancini/Sanders: common questions predominate; UCL deception is class-wide. | Appellees: reliance and injury individualized; lack of cohesive class. | Partially reversed; remand for reconsideration of Rule 23(a)/(b) cert. |
| Whether Myers’ CLRA notice complies with § 1782(a)-(c). | Notice suffices; class action need not be explicitly named. | Notice must literally include class action language. | Reversed; district court erred in dismissing Stearns for CLRA notice. |
| Whether the Mancini CLRA class is overbroad and non-certifiable; Johnson action can proceed. | Overbroad class; Johnson narrows class and is not duplicative. | Duplicativeness with Mancini bars Johnson. | Johnson action not barred; Mancini remains non-certifiable as to class; remand for potential narrower class. |
| Whether the EFTA actual damages class can be certified given damages calculations and causation. | Damages are traditional class issues; statutory damages allowed for class actions. | Damages individualized; causation requires nexus. | Partially affirmed; denial of class certification affirmed for Mancini EFTA actual damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (rigorous analysis and commonality required in Rule 23(a))
- Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011) (establishes rule on reliance and classwide deception for UCL-like claims)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (California UCL requires likelihood of deception; no need for individualized proof for injunctive/restitution relief)
- Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 97 Cal.App.4th 1282 (2002) (materiality and common reliance may support classwide inference)
- Vioxx Class Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 116 (2009) (materiality can support classwide inference for causation/reliance)
- Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516 (1993) (standing requires at least one named plaintiff with injury)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (2007) (en banc; standing in class actions)
- Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922 (2009) (standing requirements in class actions)
- Bateman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 623 F.3d 708 (2010) (statutory damages framework and class action viability)
- Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 422 F.3d 949 (2005) (statutory damages; intent to compensate without requiring proof of actual harm)