Main v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc
Filing
37
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: (12 in 3:11-cv-02001-JSW) MOTION to Dismiss Damages Claim filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (24 in 3:11-cv-01919-JSW) MOTION to Dismiss Damages Claim filed by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Case Management Statement due by 12/9/2011. Case Management Conference set for 12/16/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 11/1/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
KIMBERLY MAIN, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated,
No. C 11-01919 JSW
9
Plaintiff,
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND CONTINUING
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
11
12
WAL-MART STORES, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
ROBIN NELSON, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,
16
No. C 11-02001 JSW
Plaintiff,
17
v.
18
19
20
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND CONTINUING
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
WAL-MART STORES, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
/
21
22
23
MARYLYNN GRIKAVICIOUS, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated,
No. C 11-02893 JSW
Plaintiff,
24
25
26
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
ORDER CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
27
Defendants.
28
/
1
2
LOURDES R. LANDEROS, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated,
3
4
5
No. C 11-02659 JSW
Plaintiff,
ORDER CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
6
Defendants.
7
/
8
9
TINA BAUER, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
No. C 11-03233 JSW
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
WAL-MART STORES, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
13
Defendants.
14
/
15
16
Now before the Court are the motions to dismiss filed by defendant Wal-Mart Stores,
17
Inc. (“Defendant”). The Court determines that these matters are appropriate for disposition
18
without oral argument and are deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the
19
hearing set for November 4, 2011 is HEREBY VACATED. Having carefully reviewed the
20
parties’ papers and considering their arguments and the relevant authority, and good cause
21
appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s motions to dismiss for the reasons set forth
22
below.
23
Defendant moves to dismiss the “claims” by plaintiff Kimberly Main and Robin Nelson
24
(“Plaintiffs”) for cy pres recovery. Plaintiffs each bring a cause of action for violation of
25
California Civil Code § 1747.08, the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (“Song-Beverly
26
Credit Card Act”). In their prayers for relief, Plaintiffs each seek an award for themselves and
27
the purported class they seek to represent of the civil penalty pursuant to California Civil Code
28
§ 1747.08 and “for distribution of any moneys recovered on behalf of the Class of similarly
2
1
situated consumers via fluid recovery or cy pres recovery where necessary to prevent Defendant
2
from retaining the benefits of their wrongful conduct.” Defendant argues that cy pres is
3
considered a form of equitable relief and the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act only authorizes
4
recovery of statutory damages by private plaintiffs.
5
In Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307 (9th Cir.
6
1990), the Ninth Circuit held that cy pres or a fluid recovery may be considered by courts to
7
distribute unclaimed funds after a valid judgment for statutory damages has been entered
8
against a defendant. The court merely rejected the district court’s specific application of cy pres
9
because the proposed distribution of funds was to a group too remote from the plaintiff class
and there was no reasonable certainty that any class member would have benefitted. Id. at
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
1308.1
12
The Court need not determine at this time whether distribution of any unclaimed
13
statutory damages to the purported class through cy pres would be appropriate. The issue of cy
14
pres distribution is premature until a class is certified, damages are awarded, and there are
15
funds that remain unclaimed. See Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 966 (9th Cir.
16
2009) (finding cy pres distribution “becomes ripe only if entire settlement fund is not
17
distributed to class members” and declining to determine propriety of cy pres at that time).
18
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motions to dismiss. This Order is without
19
prejudice to Defendant challenging the use of cy pres distribution if and when this issue
20
becomes ripe.
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
26
27
28
Defendant relies on Haug v. Petsmart, Inc., 2010 WL 2925096 (E.D. Cal. July 23,
2010). In Haug, the court characterized the plaintiff’s request for cy pres relief as damages,
and as such, struck the plaintiff’s request for “cy pres damages” as unauthorized by the
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. The Court disagrees that cy pres funds are a form of
damages, and finds instead, that they are a form of distribution of damages. Therefore, the
Court finds the reasoning of Haug unpersuasive.
1
3
1
2
In addition, the case management conferences, set in all related matters, is HEREBY
CONTINUED to December 16, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 1, 2011
5
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?