Flynn v. Sony Electronics, Inc. et al
Filing
225
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 219 Motion for Approval of Class Notice Proposal. Court denies Plaintiffs' request for approval of notice using case-specific Facebook page. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 1/7/2015. (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
RONALD FLYNN, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly
situated, et al.,
14
15
Plaintiffs,
v.
16
17
SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-2109-BAS(MDD)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE
PROPOSAL
[ECF No. 219]
Defendants.
18
19
20
On September 25, 2009, Plaintiffs Ronald Flynn commenced this putative class
21
action alleging that Defendant Sony Electronics, Inc. manufactured and sold defective
22
notebook computers under the VAIO brand name from January 1, 2007 to the present.
23
Plaintiffs Thad Nation, Christina Egner, and Rickey Glasco were later added to this
24
lawsuit. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the class-
25
notice proposal.
26
The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument.
27
See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and
28
DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ class notice proposal.
-1-
09cv2109
1
I.
BACKGROUND1
On September 25, 2013, two classes were certified and defined as:
2
(1) California residents who purchased a Sony VAIO
Laptop, series SZ, FZ, NQ, EB, and F in California between
March 16, 2006 and present, for claims of violations of
UCL, CLRA, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of
implied warranty, and common counts of assumpsit and
declaratory relief; and
3
4
5
6
(2) New Jersey residents who purchased a Sony VAIO
Laptop, series SZ, FZ, NQ, EB, and F between March 16,
2006 and present, bringing claims for violation of NJCFA,
8
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty,
and common counts of assumpsit and declaratory relief.
9 (September 25, 2013 Order 43:22–44:2.)
7
10
Plaintiffs hired Kurtzman Carson Consultants to disseminate and administer the
11
proposed notice plan. (Pls.’ Mot. 5:12–15.) Plaintiffs’ consultant estimates that there
12
are 436,892 class members in California and New Jersey. The firm plans to reach
13
approximately 38.86% of the class through individualized notice and 43.04% through
14
notice by publication for a total of 81.9% of the class. (Rosenthal Decl. ¶¶ 14, 18.) The
15
target of 80% was made in light of the Federal Judicial Center’s Judges’ Class Action
16
Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide setting a “reach
17
standard” of 70-95%. (Rosenthal Supplemental Decl. ¶ 4.)
18
Plaintiffs propose a combination of direct and indirect methods to notify class
19
members. The notices consist of a short-form and long-form notice that is modeled off
20
of the Federal Judicial Center’s notices, and the parties agree on the form, content, and
21
distribution plan with two exceptions. (Pls.’ Mot. 3:3–8.) Plaintiffs will send direct
22
notice to 143,792 identified class members in the form of an email containing a
23
summary of the litigation and a link to the case website, and then again by mail for all
24
email bouncebacks for which a postal address is known. (Id. at 4:8–15.) Defendant
25
does not object to this method. (Def.’s Opp’n 3:3–8.)
26
//
27
28
1
Mr. Flynn as well as Defendants Best Buy Co., Inc. and Best Buy Stores, L.P. have since been
dismissed from this action.
-2-
09cv2109
1
For class members that Defendant does not have contact information, Plaintiffs
2
propose notice by publication in People magazine, the Los Angeles Daily News,
3
Facebook text ads, a case-specific Facebook site, a case website with information about
4
the litigation, and an internet banner on several thousand websites. (Pls.’ Mot.
5
5:5–7:21.) Defendant objects to the proposed publication in People magazine as to the
6
New Jersey class members as well as the proposed case-specific Facebook page.
7
(Def.’s Opp’n, 3:3–8.)
8
9
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
10
Class notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to
11
apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity
12
to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hannover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S.
13
306, 314 (1950). The notice must state clearly and concisely, in plain language:
17
(i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class
certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that
a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney
if the member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from
the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time
and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding
effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).
18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(b). The purpose of this notice is to protect a class members’
19
due-process rights by affording them the opportunity to opt out of the action. Wang v.
20
Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743, 757 (9th Cir. 2010) vacated on other grounds,
21
132 S. Ct. 741 (2011). The district court has wide discretion in fashioning the proposed
22
notice. In re “Agent Orange” Product Liability Litigation, 818 F.2d 145, 168 (2d Cir.
23
1987).
14
15
16
24
25
III.
DISCUSSION
26
As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the substance of these notices
27
satisfies the requirements under Rule 23(c)(2)(B). Specifically, the Court approves of
28
the short-form and long-form notices in Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to Plaintiffs’ motion.
-3-
09cv2109
1
Additionally, Plaintiffs must add the phrase “in CA & NJ” to the internet banner
2
advertisements, should space allow, per the parties’ agreement from the meet-and-
3
confer process. (Def.’s Opp’n 3 n.1.)
4
The parties agree to the class-action-notice plan in regards to direct notification,
5
but are in disagreement with some aspects of the proposal’s notice by publication.
6
Defendant objects to the use of the New Jersey edition of People magazine and to the
7
creation of a case-specific Facebook page. The Court considers these proposed
8
methods of notice in turn.
9
10
A.
New Jersey People Magazine Publication
11
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ proposed publication in the New Jersey state
12
edition of People magazine is overbroad because it reaches residents of states who are
13
not included in the class. (Def.’s Opp’n 4:3–5.) The Court disagrees and finds that this
14
notice is not overbroad.
15
Defendant states that courts have rejected requests for overbroad publications
16
when local publications would suffice. See Macarz v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 201 F.R.D.
17
54, 64 (D. Conn. 2001). In Macarz, the defendant opposed the plaintiff’s proposed
18
notice plan because of the considerable time and cost borne by the defendant to create
19
a list of the class members to mail, and because 25% of the mailed letters would go to
20
members who are not in the class. Macarz, 201 F.R.D. at 60–61. That court held that
21
because 25% of the mailings would be sent to non-class members the notice was
22
overbroad, would confuse recipients, and would encourage inquiries by non-class
23
members. Id. at 64.
24
Macarz is factually distinguishable from this case. In Macarz, the cost of
25
forming the list and the fact that 25% of it would include non-class members were the
26
main issues the defendant had with the plaintiff’s proposed notice plan. See Macarz,
27
201 F.R.D. at 60. The Marcarz defendant had the responsibility for paying for the
28
notice, but presently Plaintiffs bear the cost of notice. The difference in monetary
-4-
09cv2109
1
burdens is important.
2
Further, the issue here is the broadness of the notice by publication, whereas in
3
Macarz, the defendant objected to the individualized notice as being overbroad. This
4
distinction is significant because it is clear that mailing a notice of a class action
5
directly to a non-class member would likely lead to inquiries by non-class members.
6
In contrast, a non-class member seeing a publication about a class action seems much
7
less likely to inquire about the class. In this case, it seems even less likely that a
8
non-class member would inquire upon seeing the publication because the short-form
9
notice clearly delineates, in the title and in a bold box, that it applies only to California
10
and New Jersey residents. (Pls.’ Mot. Ex. 1.) The Court finds that Macarz is
11
distinguishable from the present case, and thus, it fails to provide adequate legal
12
authority to reject the publication proposal at issue.
13
Defendant also contends that Plaintiffs should demonstrate that publications
14
local to New Jersey are not effective or available. (Def.’s Opp’n 4:5–6.) However,
15
Plaintiffs only need to show that the proposed notice, under all the circumstances, is
16
reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pending action and provide
17
an opportunity to opt out. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. Plaintiffs meet this burden in
18
regards to the notice publication in the New Jersey edition of People. See id.
19
Plaintiffs state People magazine was chosen for its large subscription base,
20
common usage in class-action notice, and its correlation among laptop owners. (Pls.’
21
Mot. 6:1–8.) Under the present circumstances, the People publication is not overbroad
22
because People reaches 23.3% of California and New Jersey Sony Laptop Owners.
23
(Rosenthal Decl. ¶ 15.) Additionally, People’s readers are 8.1% more likely to be a
24
California or New Jersey Sony Laptop Owner compared to those states’ general
25
population. (Id.) This is sufficient to justify using People over a local New Jersey
26
publication.
27
//
28
//
-5-
09cv2109
1
The New York Metro Area edition of People covers New Jersey, ten counties in
2
New York, and a county in Pennsylvania. (Rosenthal Supplemental Decl. ¶ 8.)
3
However, simply because the publication reaches residents outside of the Class does
4
not necessarily mean that the notice is overbroad. See Tylka v. Gerber Products Co.,
5
182 F.R.D. 573, 578 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (holding that notice published in newspapers in
6
six bordering states would be reasonable even though the class was comprised solely
7
of Illinois residents). For example, it is reasonable to believe that New Jersey class
8
members commute to these nearby counties for work or leisure and pick up a copy of
9
People outside of New Jersey. See id. Additionally, because 23.7% of People’s
10
circulation consists of single-copy sales with 12 readers per copy, it is entirely
11
reasonable to believe that New Jersey class members who buy and subsequently read
12
People do so outside of New Jersey. (Rosenthal Supplemental Decl. ¶ 9.) The notice
13
also lessens the possibility of inquiries by non-class members because the title and a
14
bold box clearly state that the action only applies to California and New Jersey
15
residents. (Rosenthal Decl. Ex. 1.)
16
In sum, the Court approves the proposed publication in the New Jersey edition
17
of People because it is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise
18
New Jersey class members of the pending action. See Mulane, 339 U.S. at 314.
19
20
B.
Case-Specific Facebook Page
21
Plaintiffs also propose a case-specific Facebook page to allow class members to
22
receive updates related to the litigation. (Pls.’ Reply 7:19–24.) Defendant argues that
23
the case-specific Facebook page does not comply with the purpose of notice and that
24
it is overbroad. (Def.’s Opp’n 5:6–16.) The Court agrees with Defendant because the
25
proposed Facebook page is not aligned with the purpose of the notice requirement.
26
//
27
//
28
//
-6-
09cv2109
1
The purpose of the class-action-notice requirement is to apprise class members
2
of the action and give them the opportunity to opt out. Wang, 623 F.3d at 757; Zeisel
3
v. Diamond Foods, Inc., C10-01192 JSW, 2011 WL 4551473, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3,
4
2011). In contrast, Plaintiffs’ reason for the proposed Facebook page is to allow class
5
members to become “friends” or “like” the page so that they can receive updates and
6
posts related to the litigation. (Pls.’ Mot. 7:16–19.)
7
Furthermore, the case-specific Facebook page would only update and inform
8
class members who were already notified of the action and decided to not opt out
9
because it would be difficult for a class member to be aware of the case-specific
10
Facebook page in the first place without having first being aware of the litigation
11
through other means. This is because the link embedded in the emails, internet banners,
12
and Facebook text ads all lead to the main case website and not the case-specific
13
Facebook page. (See Pls.’ Mot. 7:11–14.) Additionally, because the case-specific
14
Facebook page is not advertised or published anywhere, to receive notice from the
15
case-specific website the class member would likely have to actively seek the
16
case-specific page. (See id.) Class members actively searching for notice is not what
17
was intended by requiring notice in a class action. See Wang, 623 F.3d at 757.
18
Because a class member will only be aware of the case-specific Facebook page
19
after being notified of the action, Plaintiffs’ proposed case-specific website does not
20
comply with the purpose of class-action notification. Therefore, the Court does not
21
approve of the case-specific Facebook page.
22
23
IV.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
24
In light of the trial court’s discretion and the foregoing reasons, the Court
25
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of class
26
notice proposal. Notice approved by this Court shall be provided to the class by:
27
28
(1)
Individualized email containing a summary of the litigation and a link to
the case website;
-7-
09cv2109
1
(2)
Individualized mail containing the short-form notice;
2
(3)
A case-specific website with the long-form notice;
3
(4)
Four eighth-page short-form notices once a week for four consecutive
weeks in the Los Angeles Daily News;
4
5
(5)
and
6
7
A Short-form notice the California and New Jersey editions of People;
(6)
Internet banner ads and Facebook text ads geographically targeted to
8
California and New Jersey that include the phrase “in CA & NJ.”
9
The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for approval of notice using a
10
case-specific Facebook page.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
DATED: January 7, 2015
14
Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
09cv2109
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?