295 F.R.D. 472
S.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff Waller sued HP alleging the SimpleSave external backup device was falsely advertised as "automatic, hands-free backup," when it required user programming for some file types.
- Waller sought to certify a California class of SimpleSave purchasers (March 27, 2006 to present) for restitution under the UCL and FAL; HP removed the case to federal court.
- HP argued absent class members lack Article III standing and that individualized issues (reliance, exposure, injury) defeat Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.
- After Waller’s purchase and after suit was filed, HP released a free automatic backup software update (August 2010) that remedied the alleged defect and was auto-offered to connected devices.
- The Court found numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy satisfied but denied class certification because the software update undermined adequacy, superiority, standing, typicality, and predominance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must absent class members have Article III standing at certification? | Waller: Ninth Circuit precedent permits focusing on named plaintiff's standing; absent members need not be assessed separately. | HP: Absent members must have Article III standing; class cannot include members who lack standing. | Court: Follows cases treating representative's standing as controlling for certification; but finds absent members would have standing here anyway. |
| What is sufficient injury for Article III in UCL/FAL product-mislabeling claims? | Waller: Purchase of a product containing a misrepresentation is an economic injury (loss in value) sufficient for standing without proof of individual reliance. | HP: Injury must be traceable — plaintiff must have relied on the misrepresentation; otherwise individualized inquiries defeat class treatment. | Court: Buying a product containing the alleged misrepresentation satisfies Article III standing; reliance need not be shown for absent members. |
| Do individualized issues (reliance, exposure, differing packaging/online listings) defeat predominance and typicality? | Waller: Liability turns on objective, common question whether packaging/claims are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. | HP: Purchasers differ in exposure, files affected, and retailer descriptions; individualized proof will predominate. | Court: Commonality and typicality satisfied for in-store purchasers exposed to uniform packaging; class must be limited accordingly. |
| Does the availability of the free automatic-update remedy defeat adequacy, superiority, and class standing? | Waller: (Did not meaningfully respond to update in briefing.) | HP: Update remedied the asserted injury; class action is neither superior nor necessary and representative inadequately protects class because a free fix is available. | Court: Denies certification with prejudice — update makes class litigation unnecessary and undermines adequacy, superiority, standing, typicality, and predominance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (in class actions standing analysis may focus on named representative; purchase can supply injury)
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (no class may contain members lacking Article III standing; emphasizes standing elements)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (class-commonality requirement and when a common contention can resolve central issues)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (UCL relief available without individualized proof of deception, reliance, or injury; focus on defendant’s conduct)
- Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (standing in class action satisfied if at least one named plaintiff meets requirements)
- Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2011) (availability of refunds/recalls can make class action unnecessary and undermine adequacy)