278 F.R.D. 562
S.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs seek class certification for Spanish-language payday loan claims under California law, arguing language-barrier violations under the CDDTL and UCL.
- Defendants are Advance America entities; Rodriguez is proposed class representative for California Spanish-speaking customers.
- The CDDTL requires notices and written agreements to be in the language principally used by the customer; violations permit damages, restitution, and other remedies.
- Plaintiffs presented declarations from Spanish-speaking customers and store observations; defendants contend Spanish forms were limited to October 2009 onward and that English explanations were required by policy.
- The Court-ordered the matter to proceed as a bench trial and addressed Daubert challenges to plaintiffs’ expert, then evaluated class-certification viability.
- The court ultimately denied class certification and related motions, while allowing potential joinder of additional plaintiffs and setting pretrial dates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daubert admissibility of expert | Krosnick’s method yields classwide insights. | Method biased and unreliable due to counsel involvement and subjective data. | Court admits weight but allows admissibility; Daubert standard applied to expert. |
| Commonality under Rule 23(a) for a Spanish-language class | Common policy violated; same issues apply classwide. | Membership depends on individualized transactions; no common resolution. | Commonality not satisfied; class certification denied. |
| Appropriateness of a 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) division and feasibility of a divided certification | Divided certification allows injunction for language policy and damages for individuals. | Individualized questions overwhelm common issues; not suitable for class treatment. | Division rejected; no class-wide relief feasible; certification denied. |
| Joinder of additional plaintiffs | 25 potential plaintiffs identified; joinder feasible. | Credibility and due process concerns require individual examination. | Court allows motion to add named plaintiffs; hearing date set. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (class-wide resolution requires common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (commonality requires common questions with unified theory)
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (Daubert gatekeeping precedes Rule 23 analysis at certification stage)
- Crosby v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 796 F.2d 576 (1st Cir. 1986) (membership determination can require case-by-case inquiry)
- Abels v. JBC Legal Grp., 227 F.R.D. 541 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (standardized conduct supports class treatment)
- Forman v. Data Transfer, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 400 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (common questions must yield classwide answers)
- In re First Alliance Mortgage Co., 471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) (case-specific inquiry may be limited when scripts remove variability)