Hohenberg v. Ferrero USA, Inc

Filing 94

RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING by Ferrero USA, Inc re 92 Supplemental Briefing Pursuant to Order at Hearing. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Eggleton, Keith)(ag).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 KEITH E. EGGLETON, State Bar No. 159842 COLLEEN BAL, State Bar No. 167637 DALE R. BISH, State Bar No. 235390 EDMUNDO C. MARQUEZ, State Bar No. 268424 AMIR STEINHART, State Bar No. 275037 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant FERRERO U.S.A., INC. 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 In re FERRERO LITIGATION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 11 CV 0205 H (CAB) DEFENDANT FERRERO U.S.A., INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY (PURSUANT TO ORDER AT HEARING) Before: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY 11 CV 0205 H 1 The case law cited in plaintiffs’ Supplemental Statement of Authority (Dkt. No. 92) does 2 not support certification on the record currently before the Court. In Johnson v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 3 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103357 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011), plaintiff submitted expert declarations 4 demonstrating (1) the ability to evaluate the health statements made by Yoplait, and (2) the 5 ability to determine customer interpretations of defendant’s advertising – i.e., the exact 6 declarations promised, but not submitted, by plaintiffs in this action. In denying General Mills’ 7 motion for decertification, the court found the record satisfied “the standard set forth in Wal- 8 Mart” because plaintiff “present[ed] sufficient facts to show that all of the class members’ claims 9 have at their heart a common contention.” Id. at *5. Similarly, in Mathias v. Smoking 10 Everywhere, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121687 (E.D. Cal. Oct 20, 2011) (Docket No. 39-4) 11 and Galvan v. KDI Distribution, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127602 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2011) 12 (Docket No. 116-2, Exh. 5), plaintiffs submitted expert reports showing how they intended to 13 prove deception. See also Public Employees Ret. Sys. of Miss. v. Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc., 2011 14 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93222, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) (conducting 30 paragraph analysis of 15 expert declarations, witness depositions and factual record pertaining to Rule 23(b)(3) 16 predominance requirement); Youngblood v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17 115389, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011) (record contained excerpts from 23 depositions); 18 Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104449, at *16-18 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 19 2011) (finding “significant (indeed ample) proof that that the illegal policy alleged in fact exists . 20 . . . Plaintiffs here have offered substantial proof that [an illegal] policy in fact existed”); Smith 21 v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111941 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2011) (initially 22 denying motion for certification where “[t]he Court was not convinced, however, that plaintiff 23 established a plausible method of proving damages”). Unlike the record in these cases, plaintiffs 24 are asking the Court to certify a class on a record that does not support a finding under Dukes 25 that common issues will predominate or that plaintiffs can prove common issues on a classwide 26 basis. 27 28 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY -1- 11 CV 0205 H Respectfully submitted, 1 2 Dated: November 9, 2011 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 3 4 5 By: /s/ Keith E. Eggleton Keith E. Eggleton 6 Attorneys for Defendant Ferrero U.S.A., Inc. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY -2- 11 CV 0205 H