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).

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

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