MDL No. 2357 - IN RE: Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

Filing 227

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 207 Motion to Enforce Settlement; granting Plaintiffs' 206 Motion to Seal; granting Zappos's 210 Motion to Seal; denying as moot Zappos's 214 Motion Request for Oral A rgument; granting Plaintiffs' 220 and 223 Motions for Extension of Time - Plaintiffs' responses to 217 Motion to Dismiss and 219 Motion to Strike are due within 30 days. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/27/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7

3:12-cv-00325-RCJ-VPC
IN RE ZAPPOS, INC., SECURTIY BREACH
LITIGATION

ORDER

8
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 207) and

9
10

Motions to Extend Time (ECF Nos. 220, 223), Defendant’s Motion Request for Oral Argument

11

(ECF No. 214) as well as a Motion to Seal filed by each party. (ECF Nos. 206, 210).

12

I.

13

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This litigation arises from the security breach suffered by Defendant Zappos, Inc. The

14

Plaintiffs are Zappos customers who allege that their sensitive information was compromised as

15

a result of the breach. The parties have been litigating this case for about two years. On June 18,

16

2014, the parties jointly stipulated to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of mediation

17

efforts. (ECF No. 192). The parties engaged in mediation on July 30, 2014, and while progress

18

was reportedly made, no settlement was reached. (ECF No. 195).

19

Negotiations continued outside of mediation and on August 6, 2014, the parties again

20

stipulated to a stay of the case until the settlement could be finalized, representing to the Court

21

that substantial progress had been made toward settlement. (ECF No. 196). Another stay was

22

jointly requested on September 17, 2014, which the Court granted, as the parties indicated that

23

they were very close to settlement. (ECF No. 201). The stipulation also stated that the parties

24

were scheduled to participate in another mediation session on November 12, 2014. (Id.). Based
1

1

on this representation, the Court denied without prejudice Zappos’s motion to dismiss the case.

2

The case was then stayed until January 30, 2015. (ECF No. 205).

3

Prior to the November 12, 2014 mediation, the parties reached an agreement on

4

class-wide relief but sought an additional mediation session to negotiate the amount of attorneys’

5

fees and other expenses that Plaintiffs’ counsel would request from the Court. The terms of the

6

class-wide relief, as well as other substantive provisions, were reduced to writing in a

7

Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”). Multiple drafts of the MOU were exchanged

8

between the parties. On November 3, 2014, Zappos’s attorneys sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a revised

9

copy of the MOU, which included completed provisions governing class-wide relief, but which

10

left blank the amounts that would be sought as attorneys’ fees. (Draft MOU 6, ECF No. 209-1,

11

Ex. F). Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed the proposed MOU and made some minor changes. First, in

12

the space for attorneys’ fees they input “TBD,” and second, as part of the heading for the

13

relevant section, they included the phrase “TO BE DETERMINED AND INSERTED UPON

14

AGREEMENT AT MEDIATION.” (Pls.’ MOU 6, ECF No. 208-1). Other grammatical changes

15

were also made. On November 5, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel signed the MOU and returned it to

16

Zappos’s counsel, who did not sign the document.

17

Once the signed MOU was received, Zappos’s counsel requested a demand for attorneys’

18

fees from Plaintiffs’ counsel in preparation for the November 12, 2014 mediation. (Strickland

19

Decl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 209-1, Ex. 1). The request was renewed on November 7, 2014 when

20

Zappos’s counsel asked the mediator to determine what the fee demand would be. (Counsel’s

21

Email, ECF No. 209-1, Ex. G). On November 10, 2014, the mediator obtained and conveyed the

22

requested fee amount to Zappos’s counsel. (Strickland Decl. ¶ 18). Zappos’s counsel found that

23

the amount of fees sought was “extravagant” and determined that the scheduled mediation would

24
2

1

be unproductive based on how far apart the parties were on the issue of fees and costs. (Id. ¶ 19;

2

see also Counsel Communication, ECF No. 209-1, Ex. H). Word was sent via the mediator that

3

if Plaintiffs’ counsel did not reduce the initial fee demand, Zappos’s counsel would not attend the

4

mediation session. Although telephonic appearances were made, no fee agreement was reached.

5

Zappos’s counsel engaged in at least one additional mediation caucus with the mediator,

6

through telephonic appearance, but further progress was not made on the fee demand cap that

7

would be included in the settlement agreement. Thereafter, the mediator informed Plaintiffs’

8

counsel that mediation was concluded and that “Zappos intends to litigate this case.” (Mediator

9

Communication, ECF No. 209-1, Ex. J). On January 30, 2015, Zappos’s filed a renewed motion

10

to dismiss the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 217). Plaintiffs then requested that the

11

Court grant an extension to the deadline for responding to that motion and Zappos’s motion to

12

strike until the Court ruled on the present Motion.

13

II.

14

DISCUSSION
Under Nevada law, a settlement agreement is a contract that is governed by the principles

15

of contract law. Mack v. Estate of Mack, 206 P.3d 98, 108 (Nev. 2009). “Basic contract

16

principles require, for an enforceable contact, an offer and acceptance, meeting of the minds, and

17

consideration.” May v. Anderson, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (Nev. 2005). An enforceable contract is

18

formed “when the parties have agreed to the material terms, even though the contract’s exact

19

language is not finalized until later.” Id.

20

However, “[a] contract cannot exist when material terms are lacking or are insufficiently

21

certain and definite.” Id. Rather, there must be a meeting of the minds, which “exists when the

22

parties have agreed upon the contract’s essential terms.” Certified Fire Prot. Inc. v. Precision

23

Constr., 283 P.3d 250, 255 (Nev. 2012). What constitutes an “essential term” of an agreement

24
3

1

“varies with the nature and complexity of the case and must, therefore, be determined on a case-

2

by-case basis.” May, 119 P.3d at 1258. Further, “[w]hich terms are essential ‘depends on the

3

agreement and its context and also on the subsequent conduct of the parties, including the dispute

4

which arises and the remedy sought.’” Certified Fire Prot. Inc., 283 P.3d at 255.

5

In this case, the Court finds that the MOU does not embody a binding settlement contract

6

because the parties failed to have a “meeting of the minds” on an essential term of the

7

agreement—attorneys’ fees. The facts here persuade the Court that the amount of Plaintiffs’ fee

8

demand was a material and essential term of the agreement. First, the parties exchanged multiple

9

draft copies of the MOU and Zappos rejected earlier versions of the document that failed to

10

include language that set a cap at the amount of fees that Plaintiffs would request. (See Oct. 6,

11

2014 Draft 6, ECF No. 209-1, Ex. D). The various versions of the MOU make it clear that

12

Zappos would not move forward with the settlement until a cap was placed on the amount of fees

13

sought. (See Nov. 5, 2014 Draft 6, ECF No. 209-1, Ex. F (substituting the language “not to

14

exceed” for “subject to a cap of”).

15

Second, Zappos’s counsel requested Plaintiffs’ fee demand multiple times throughout the

16

course of the settlement negotiations and communicated that the fee demand issue was an

17

important topic that needed to be resolved. (Strickland Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 17; see also

18

Sept. 8, 2014 Email, ECF No. 209-1, Ex. B). And third, despite having the terms of the

19

class-wide relief resolved, the parties still found it necessary to schedule a separate mediation

20

session to negotiate the fee demand. The purpose of the November 12, 2014 mediation is

21

reflected in Plaintiffs’ signed copy of the MOU in which Plaintiffs’ counsel altered the heading

22

of the relevant section, stating that the amount of attorneys’ fees was “TO BE DETERMINED

23

AND INSERTED UPON AGREEMENT AT MEDIATON.” (Pls.’ MOU 6, ECF No. 208-1).

24
4

1

Indeed, the Court finds it unlikely that Plaintiffs’ counsel would schedule a mediation session

2

and then travel from all across the country to personally attend that session unless the subject of

3

the mediation was material to the settlement agreement.
Furthermore, neither Zappos nor its counsel signed the version of the MOU that was sent

4
5

to Plaintiffs and to which Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently made certain changes. Although the

6

changes were not necessarily significant, it would be unfair to hold Zappos to an agreement that

7

was unsigned where the document clearly appears to not be a final draft, given that the amounts

8

of attorneys’ fee and costs were not included. Surely Zappos was not giving Plaintiffs a “blank

9

check” to fill in any fee cap that Plaintiffs’ counsel thought justified. The fact that Zappos’s

10

counsel left the lines blank for “attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs” as well as for the

11

“incentive award” screams that the MOU was still in draft form and not a finalized agreement

12

representing a meeting of the minds on all essential terms. See May, 119 P.3d at 1257.
The Court cannot compel compliance with a settlement agreement when the “material

13
14

terms are left uncertain.” Id. Therefore, the Court finds that the MOU does not constitute an

15

enforceable settlement document because it omits caps on the amount of attorneys’ fees

16

Plaintiffs are entitled to seek, which appears from the record to be an important element to the

17

settlement in this particular class-action lawsuit. See id. at 1258 (stating that terms are material if

18

“[t]hey are an important reason why a party enters into a settlement agreement”). Plaintiffs’

19

Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED.

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 207)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 206) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zappos’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 210) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zappos’s Motion Request for Oral Argument (ECF
No. 214) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions for Extension of Time (ECF No.

11

220, 223) are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ responses to Zappos’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 217)

12

and Motion to Strike (ECF No. 219) are due thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

March 27, 2015
Dated: _______________________

16
17

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
6