Monica Bruce et al v. Teleflora LLC
Filing
91
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 43 AND DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS 68 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc) .Modified on 12/18/2013. (lc).
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
MONICA BRUCE and DONNA
STUBBS, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
13
14
v.
Plaintiffs,
TELEFLORA, LLC,
15
Case No. 2:13-cv-03279-ODW(CWx)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION [43] AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS [68]
Defendant.
16
I.
17
INTRODUCTION
18
Deeply dissatisfied with the floral arrangements they received from Teleflora
19
LLC, Plaintiffs Monica Bruce and Donna Stubbs moved to certify a consumer class
20
against the online floral retailer. (ECF No. 43.) Bruce and Stubbs assert that a class
21
action is the only way to remedy Teleflora’s wrongful acts of providing materially
22
inferior floral arrangements and delivering arrangements long past the anticipated
23
arrival date—or not at all. Teleflora objects to Plaintiffs’ class certification on the
24
grounds that individual questions of fact and law predominate and the Motion will
25
yield far too many individualized inquiries. The Court finds that since one would
26
have to assess the contents and quality of each arrangement received by Teleflora
27
customers during the class period, Plaintiffs have not satisfied the commonality
28
///
1
element. These individualized inquiries would also predominate over any classwide
2
issues. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.1
II.
3
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Monica Bruce and Donna Stubbs, residents of Texas and Kansas, respectively,
4
5
purchased floral arrangements from Teleflora.
(FAC ¶¶ 13, 14, 44–45, 51–52.)
6
Teleflora is not a florist, nor does it hold any flowers in inventory. (Id. ¶ 21.)
7
Teleflora instead maintains a network of more than 18,000 local florists to fill
8
customers’ orders and offers over 500 different floral arrangements containing a
9
unique variety of flowers, greenery, and hard goods. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 26; Martin Decl.
10
¶ 12.)
Customers purchase floral arrangements through Teleflora by visiting
11
www.Teleflora.com, selecting products for purchase, inputting specific delivery dates,
12
and paying Teleflora.
13
Delaware and headquartered in Los Angeles, California, it markets and sells floral
14
products to consumers throughout the United States via its member-florist network,
15
various websites, advertisements, and toll-free phone numbers. (Id. ¶¶ 15–16, 21.)
(FAC ¶¶ 22–23.)
Although Teleflora is incorporated in
16
Teleflora’s website provides an extensive photo gallery of all its floral
17
arrangements for sale. (Id. ¶ 22.) Teleflora creates the photographed arrangements
18
using the same set of instructions that member-florists use to construct the
19
arrangements. (Martin Decl. ¶ 18.) Alongside each color photo, Teleflora provides a
20
generic description of the arrangement, detailing the types of flowers, vase,
21
approximate height, and siding.2 (Id. ¶ 15; see Walker-Roletter Decl. Ex. A.) For an
22
additional charge, customers may also include add-ons to their floral arrangement,
23
including balloons, chocolate, or stuffed animals. (Martin Decl. ¶ 13.) During the
24
checkout process—but before customers purchase their arrangement—the website
25
26
27
28
1
After carefully considering the papers filed with respect to this Motion, the Court deems the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.
2
In any given description, the arrangement is either “one-sided,” meaning that the flowers are
designed to be viewed solely from one side, or “all-around,” meaning that the arrangement can be
viewed from all angles. (Martin Decl. ¶ 15.)
2
1
displays Teleflora’s substitution policy, which states that if “the exact flowers or
2
container you have selected are not available, our expert florists will create a beautiful
3
bouquet with the freshest available flowers. We will only substitute items of equal or
4
higher value.” (Id. ¶ 19; Ex. K.)
5
After a customer orders an arrangement, the member-florist must create the
6
selected arrangement by following instructions dictating the exact number and type of
7
floral stems, greenery, and hard goods. (Martin Decl. ¶ 16.) Teleflora provides these
8
instructions to member-florists in its Rules and Regulations handbook. (Id. Ex. J.)
9
Because Teleflora takes a 27-percent commission from the retail price on all
10
arrangements, member-florists are left with 73 percent of the retail price to fulfill an
11
order. (Id. ¶ 26.) Teleflora maintains that this commission is in line with reasonable
12
industry standards because each arrangement is priced according to set profit margins
13
of approximately 3.5 times the reasonable wholesale cost of the specific flowers and
14
twice the cost of hard goods. (Id. ¶ 28.) The prices also incorporate a 25-percent
15
markup for labor and other costs. (Id.) Moreover, Teleflora does not require member-
16
florists to fulfill an order they deem unprofitable. (Id. ¶ 33.) And if a member-florist
17
rejects an order, Teleflora will not charge them a fee or discharge them from the
18
member-florist network. (Id.)
19
Bruce purchased two floral arrangements after relying on corresponding
20
photographs and descriptions on Teleflora’s website. (FAC ¶¶ 44–45.) On December
21
21, 2012, she bought a “Sunny Smiles” arrangement, which was delivered to Silvia
22
Arevalo, her cousin in Virginia. (Id. ¶ 44; Bruce Dep. 79:20.) When making her
23
purchase, Bruce relied upon the arrangement’s online photograph because she thought
24
the bright colors would cheer up her cousin. (FAC ¶ 46, Ex. 11;.) Arevalo then called
25
Bruce to thank her for the floral arrangement. About two days later, Arevalo’s
26
daughter Kim emailed Bruce a photograph of the Sunny Smiles arrangement Arevalo
27
received. (Id., Exs. 3, 4.) Upon viewing this photograph, Bruce was “extremely
28
disappointed” that the arrangement was “far different and inferior to” the
3
1
representative photograph on Teleflora’s website because there were fewer yellow
2
roses in the delivered arrangement than appeared in the photograph online. (FAC
3
¶¶ 46–47.)
4
On December 26, 2012, Bruce purchased a “Jumping for Joy” arrangement for
5
her mother. (Id. ¶ 45.) Bruce’s mother received this arrangement in Florida. (Id.) As
6
she did with the Sunny Smiles arrangement, Bruce did not review written descriptions
7
of the product but rather selected the deluxe arrangement because “the combination
8
and kinds of flowers and the vase all looked nice together.” (Id. ¶ 47, Ex. 5–6.)
9
Bruce’s mother also showed Bruce pictures of the Jumping for Joy arrangement. (Id.)
10
Again, Bruce found the arrangement to be materially inferior because she was
11
expecting the deluxe version to be fuller with more flowers. When Bruce complained
12
to Teleflora about the inferior arrangements, she received a 30-percent-off coupon,
13
which she deemed worthless. (Id. ¶¶ 48–49.) Teleflora did not refund her purchases.
14
(Id. at ¶ 49.)
15
On August 21, 2011, Stubbs ordered two “Rosy Birthday Presents”
16
arrangements with balloons and chocolates from Teleflora’s website. (Id. at ¶ 51.)
17
On her purchase order, Stubbs requested that the arrangements be delivered to her
18
relatives on their birthdays, September 1, 2011, and September 8, 2011. (Id.) The
19
member-florist allegedly incorrectly recorded the delivery date as September 2, 2011,
20
and failed to timely deliver the arrangement on September 1. (Tenumah Decl. ¶ 9.)
21
Stubbs then called Teleflora requesting a full refund and cancelled the September 8
22
order. (Id.) On September 2, 2011, Teleflora refunded Stubbs for the September 1
23
non-delivery. (Ex. B.) Stubbs’s credit-card company also fully refunded her for the
24
cancelled order. (Id.)
25
In May 2012, Stubbs ordered the “Always a Lady” deluxe arrangement, with a
26
balloon and chocolates, to be delivered to her sister on May 12, 2012. (FAC ¶ 52;
27
Tenumah Decl. ¶ 10.) Because the member-florist could not fulfill the order by May
28
12, Stubbs accepted May 14, 2012, as an alternative delivery date. (Tenumah Decl. ¶
4
1
10..) When the member-florist informed Teleflora that it could not deliver on May 14,
2
Mother’s Day, Teleflora notified Stubbs. (Id. at Ex. B.) Stubbs then cancelled her
3
order and was granted a full refund on May 15, 2012. (Id.)
4
In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege claims for violation of
5
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750–84; violation of
6
California’s Unfair Competition Law, Civ. Code §§ 17200–10; and breach of express
7
contract and express warranty. (ECF No. 18.)
8
On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule
9
of Civil Procedure 23. (ECF No. 43.) Teleflora timely opposed the Motion. (ECF
10
No. 61.) That Motion is now before the Court for decision.
11
III.
12
13
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), a party seeking class certification
must initially meet four requirements:
14
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
15
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
16
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
17
claims or defenses of the class; and
18
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
19
interests of the class.
20
The proposed class must also satisfy at least one of the three requirements listed
21
in Rule 23(b). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2548 (2011). Rule
22
23(b)(3) states that a class may be maintained where “questions of law or fact
23
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
24
members,” and a class action would be “superior to other available methods for fairly
25
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
26
The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the putative class satisfies
27
each of Rule 23(a)’s elements along with one component of Rule 23(b). Conn. Ret.
28
Plans & Trust Funds v. Amgen Inc., 660 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 2011). In that
5
1
regard, “Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class
2
certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he
3
must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common
4
questions of law or fact, etc.” Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551.
5
A district court must perform a “rigorous analysis” to ensure that the plaintiff
6
has satisfied each of Rule 23(a)’s prerequisites. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551; Ellis v.
7
Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 980 (9th Cir. 2011). In many cases, “that
8
‘rigorous analysis’ will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s
9
underlying claim.
That cannot be helped.”
Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551.
When
10
resolving such factual disputes in the context of a class-certification motion, district
11
courts must consider “the persuasiveness of the evidence presented.” Ellis, 657 F.3d
12
at 982 (holding that a district court must judge the persuasiveness and not merely the
13
admissibility of evidence bearing on class certification). Ultimately the decision to
14
certify a class reposes within the district court’s discretion.
15
Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001).
IV.
16
Zinser v. Accufix
DISCUSSION
17
Plaintiffs define their putative class as all “persons who purchased pre-designed
18
floral arrangements from Teleflora’s website www.teleflora.com between May 9,
19
2009, and the present.” (Mot. 2.) Plaintiffs also propose the following subclass:
20
All persons who purchased pre-designed floral arrangements from
21
Teleflora’s website www.teleflora.com between May 9, 2009 and the
22
present, requested that the purchased arrangement be delivered on a
23
specific day, other than orders for same day delivery that were not placed
24
before 3:00 P.M., Monday–Friday or before 12:00 P.M. on Saturdays and
25
Sundays in the recipient’s time zone, but whose arrangement was
26
actually delivered on any other day or not at all, as evidenced in
27
Teleflora’s books and records.
28
(Id.)
6
1
A.
Commonality
2
Rule 23(a)’s commonality element requires a plaintiff to show that there are
3
questions of law or fact common to the class. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2251. Moreover,
4
the Supreme Court has held that commonality requires a common contention that is
5
“of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that
6
determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity
7
of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551. The focus is not
8
just on raising common questions, “even in droves—but, rather the capacity of a
9
classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the
10
litigation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
11
Plaintiffs argue that their putative class satisfies the commonality requirement
12
because “Teleflora’s business practices have caused Teleflora to breach all of its
13
promises regarding quality to Class members, and timeliness to Subclass members.”
14
(Mot. 21.) Plaintiffs further contend that Teleflora’s practice of deducting from class
15
members’ payments make it impossible for member-florists to furnish floral
16
arrangements that match the quality of the arrangements depicted online. (Mot. 3.)
17
They also assert that there are common legal questions, such as whether the
18
photographs on Teleflora’s website constitute “definite offers.” (Mot. 7–8.)
19
To support this alleged “known systemic problem,” Plaintiffs cite sales reports
20
from member-florists and other Teleflora employees. In a May 2013 Field Summary,
21
Teleflora’s Regional Vice President Mike Valarde remarked that some member-
22
florists “come to the conclusion that with the high cost of the container, the low SRP
23
we place on the bouquet and the fact that they’re getting it at 73% minus transmission
24
fee minus all other fees . . . they just can’t make any money.” (Thigpen Decl. ¶ 8.)
25
And in a June 2012 report, Vice President Darrell Housden notes that “many shops . . .
26
are not making money on the orders that they do receive.” (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs also
27
cite a sales report that notes customers have complained about Teleflora’s “one-sided”
28
///
7
1
arrangements and that their expectations from online images of floral arrangements
2
have not been met. (Id. ¶ 19.)
3
Teleflora does not specifically address the commonality requirement, instead
4
focusing on whether common legal and factual questions predominate over
5
noncommon questions.
6
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that there are common factual questions applicable
7
to their putative class, such as Teleflora’s pricing policy. See General Tel. Co. of Sw.
8
v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 159 n.15 (noting that a “general policy” could satisfy the
9
commonality element). But as the Supreme Court made clear in Dukes, common
10
questions alone are not enough to certify a class. 131 S. Ct. at 2551. Rather, those
11
common questions must yield common answers that will resolve classwide issues in a
12
uniform manner. Id.
13
Even if Plaintiffs prove that Teleflora has a uniform policy of deducting 27
14
percent from each order, and even if Plaintiffs prove that member-florists are left with
15
low profit margins, Plaintiffs would have proved nothing with respect to each
16
individual arrangement—and therefore each individual claim.
17
Telefora’s pricing policy, though relevant, is not an element of any of Plaintiffs’
18
claims. Rather, the operative issues include how each arrangement looked, the quality
19
and number of the flowers used, whether superior-quality flowers were substituted,
20
and whether the arrangement was timely delivered. These questions are the heart of
21
Plaintiffs’ breach claims—and would still be left unresolved even if Plaintiffs prove
22
their common pricing questions. See Campion v. Old Republic Home Prot. Co., Inc.,
23
272 F.R.D. 517, 531 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (finding that even if an insurer had a uniform
24
policy of encouraging the wrongful denial of claims, adjudication would require
25
individual inquiries to determine whether the insurer wrongfully denied each claim).
This is because
26
Plaintiffs contend that the “evidence necessary to prove the Class members’
27
claims would be the same regardless of whether they brought multitudes of individual
28
actions or a streamlined class action.” (Mot. 3.) But this is not necessarily true. If
8
1
Plaintiffs proved, for example, that Class Member X received an arrangement with
2
only five roses instead of seven, or that the arrangement was of inferior quality to that
3
depicted online, that evidence would prove nothing with respect to Class Member Y.
4
This is because X and Y received different arrangements—even if the same style—
5
made up of different components and likely from different member-florists. A breach
6
of one contract is not a breach of all contracts.
The Court thus finds that Plaintiffs have not established Rule 23(a)’s
7
8
commonality requirement.
9
B.
Predominance and superiority
10
The crux of this case is predominance. The Supreme Court has held that Rule
11
23(b)(3)’s predominance inquiry evaluates “whether the proposed classes are
12
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods., Inc.
13
v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997). The predominance element is “far more
14
demanding” than Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. Id. at 624. Under the
15
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, damages must be
16
“capable of measurement on a classwide basis” to establish predominance. 133 S. Ct.
17
1426, 1433 (2013). Otherwise, questions of “individual damages calculations will
18
inevitably overwhelm questions common to the class.”
19
requires that class-action treatment be the superior method of adjudicating the dispute.
20
Plaintiffs aver that the predominant factual questions are whether Teleflora
21
breached its promises to deliver high quality and timely floral arrangements due to its
22
business practices.
23
predominate just because there are slight differences in class members’ positions.
(Mot. 19.)
Id.
Rule 23(b)(3) also
Plaintiffs assert that individual questions do not
24
Teleflora responds that individual questions of fact will predominate in the
25
breach-of-contract inquiry because class members will need a “mini-trial” to
26
determine what each unique arrangement looked like, when it was delivered, whether
27
it met the consumer’s expectations, and how the consumer was damaged. (Opp’n 15.)
28
Teleflora also contends that Plaintiffs cannot prove whether substitutions were of
9
1
equal, greater, or lesser value and whether every customer was dissatisfied with their
2
purchases without engaging in individualized inquires. (Id.)
3
Just like the flowers themselves, each arrangement received by a putative class
4
member was in one way or another unique. While Teleflora may well have common
5
pricing policies that render it difficult for member-florists to produce a profitable
6
arrangement that lives up to the samples depicted online, one would have to assess
7
each individual arrangement delivered to each putative class member to determine
8
whether she received an inferior-quality arrangement and whether it was timely. This
9
is especially true considering that Plaintiffs argue in their First Amended Complaint
10
that Teleflora violates its substitution policy by providing arrangements that are
11
“typically small, less full, wilted, or near dead.” (FAC ¶ 31.) Only upon individual
12
review of the arrangements would one be able to discern whether Teleflora breached
13
its substitution policy by actually supplying wilted, dead, or poor-quality flowers on a
14
discrete occasion.
15
There is also no indication that Teleflora’s uniform policies detrimentally
16
affected every floral arrangement produced by Teleflora 18,000 member-florists
17
across the country.
18
satisfaction level. (Opp’n 1.) This figure, whether true, bolsters the common-sense
19
conclusion that resolution of this case would require assessing each individual
20
arrangement during the class period to determine whether a breach or other violation
21
occurred.
In fact, Teleflora argues that it has a 94-percent customer-
22
This is not a situation where the representative class members have
23
demonstrated that a common policy necessarily produces some uniform result=.
24
Instead, the nature of the handmade floral arrangements and natural components
25
invariably results in each arrangement being unique.
26
Neither have Plaintiffs demonstrated that damages are capable of resolution on
27
a classwide basis. See Comcast, 133 S. Ct. at 1433. Plaintiffs submitted a report from
28
///
10
1
their proposed expert, Thomas J. Maronick.3 (Thigpen Decl. Ex. 24.) Maronick
2
organized an online survey with 787 respondents who reviewed various comparisons
3
between photographs of arrangements depicted on Teleflora’s website and those
4
actually delivered. The survey revealed that the average net perceived difference4
5
between the images of products as ordered and received for consumers in the “Target
6
Market” of actual or potential Teleflora customers was 18.37 percent. (Maronick
7
Decl. 25–26.) Maronick opined based on the survey data that putative class members
8
suffered damages in the amount of “44% of the price they had paid for a floral
9
arrangement that was not of the same quality or appearance as delivered as it was
10
represented on Teleflora’s website.” (Id. at 30.)
11
The problems with this purported damages model are manifold. First, the
12
survey respondents were not necessarily actual putative class members. Plaintiffs
13
therefore ask the Court to assume damages based on what people who are not
14
necessarily class members believe about arrangements that were not actually received
15
by anyone during the class period.
16
Second, Maronick’s 44-percent damages finding is limited by his own terms to
17
only those putative class members who “paid for a floral arrangement that was not of
18
the same quality or appearance as delivered as it was represented on Teleflora’s
19
website.” (Id.) This means that even if the Court were to accept Maronick’s figure,
20
the calculation only applies once one determines that a putative class member received
21
an inferior-quality arrangement. So while Plaintiffs have attempted to solve their cart-
22
before-the-horse damages problem, they instead only compounded the problem. Their
23
very solution—Maronick’s 44-percent figure—only comes into play once one
24
3
25
26
27
28
Teleflora filed a Motion to exclude Maronick’s report as inadmissible under Federal Rule of
Evidence 702. Since the Court finds that the report does not establish that damages are capable of
measurement on a classwide basis—even with the report—the Court need not wade into the ticket of
the parties’ arguments regarding the report’s admissibility. The Court accordingly DENIES the
Teleflora’s Motion. (ECF No. 68.)
4
The “net perceived difference” takes into account what Maronick terms the “Preexisting Belief
Bias”—the level of inferiority consumers inevitably expect between an arrangement as depicted
online and as received. (Maronick 25–26.)
11
1
assesses each putative class member’s case on a singular basis. This defeats the
2
purpose of having Maronick attempt to establish a classwide damages model. See In
3
re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.-MDL No. 1869, 725 F.3d 244, 253
4
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (“When a case turns on individualized proof of injury, separate trials
5
are in order.”).
6
The Court therefore finds that individual issues will necessarily predominate
7
over common questions, thereby precluding class certification under Rule 23(b). The
8
Court also finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that damages are capable of
9
measurement on a classwide basis so that individual calculations will not “inevitably
10
overwhelm questions common to the class.” Comcast, 133 S. Ct. at 1433.
11
Plaintiffs argue that a class action is “the only realistic means for Monica Bruce
12
and Donna Stubbs, as well as the not less than tens of thousands of other individuals
13
like them, to get redress for Teleflora’s breaches.” (Mot. 2.) The Court understands
14
that the damages for each individual arrangement, if any, are small—thus making it
15
unlikely that each putative class member will bring her own suit. But Rule 23 is only
16
a solution when the plaintiffs can establish how their putative class satisfies each of
17
the Rule’s requirements; there is no leeway to certify a class simply based on the
18
difficulty of adjudicating individual claims. The Court therefore finds that in this
19
case, a class action is not the superior method of adjudicating the putative class’s
20
disputes.
21
C.
Ascertainability, numerosity, typicality, and adequate representation
22
Since Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that their putative class satisfies either
23
commonality or predominance, the Court need not address Rule 23’s remaining
24
requirements.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
12
V.
1
CONCLUSION
2
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated Rule 23’s elements and
3
therefore cannot certify Plaintiffs’ proposed class. The Court consequently DENIES
4
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
5
Exclude Expert Opinions is also DENIED. (ECF No. 68.)
6
(ECF No. 43.)
Teleflora’s Motion to
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
December 18, 2013
9
10
11
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?