252 F.R.D. 647 (C.D.Cal. 2008), 2:07-cv-0171 FMC (AJWX), Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

Docket Nº:2:07-cv-0171 FMC (AJWX).
Citation:252 F.R.D. 647
Opinion Judge:FLORENCE-MARIE COOPER, District Judge.
Party Name:Michael BATEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC., and Does 1-10, Defendants.
Attorney:Gregory N. Karasik, Ira Robert Spiro, Spiro Moss Barness, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs. Joseph E. Laska, III, Robert H. Platt, Manatt Phelps and Phillips, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.
Case Date:October 24, 2008
Court:United States District Courts, 9th Circuit, Central District of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 647

252 F.R.D. 647 (C.D.Cal. 2008)

Michael BATEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC., and Does 1-10, Defendants.

No. 2:07-cv-0171 FMC (AJWX).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

October 24, 2008

Page 648

Gregory N. Karasik, Ira Robert Spiro, Spiro Moss Barness, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Joseph E. Laska, III, Robert H. Platt, Manatt Phelps and Phillips, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

FLORENCE-MARIE COOPER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Bateman's Renewed Motion for Class Certification (docket nos. 28, 48, 50), filed October 16, 2007 and September 22, 2008. The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply documents submitted in connection with this motion. The Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for October 27, 2008, is removed from the Court's calendar. For the reasons and in the manner set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises out of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (" FACTA" ). FACTA requires, in relevant part, that credit or debit card receipts issued to consumers shall not print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon the receipt. 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1). Plaintiff Michael Bateman alleges that Defendant American Multi-Cinema issued credit and debit card receipts from its automated box office kiosks that were in violation of FACTA. Specifically, Defendant's kiosks are alleged to have printed both the first 4 digits and the last 4 digits of a credit card on each receipt. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 5, 2007, alleging Defendant violated FACTA. However, the Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff or any potential class members suffer or have suffered any actual harm as a result of Defendant's violation. Within two weeks of the Complaint being filed, Defendant corrected its kiosks to fully comply with FACTA.

Plaintiff filed his original Motion for Class Certification on October 16, 2007 (docket no. 28). The Court denied Plaintiff's original Motion because it failed to satisfy the superiority requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Court found that if certified, the potential statutory damages to be awarded could be enormous and completely out of proportion to any harm suffered by Plaintiff. (Minute Order dated October 31, 2007.) The Court denied the Motion without prejudice, however, as the Ninth Circuit had accepted interlocutory appeal of an analogous case, Soualian v. International Coffee and Tea LLC, CV 07-502-RGK (JCx), 2007 WL 4877902 (C.D. Cal. filed June 11, 2007). The parties stipulated to a stay of the case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Soualian . However, the appeal was recently dismissed after the parties in Soualian reached a settlement. The Court thereafter permitted the parties in this case to submit supplemental briefing regarding the impact on class certification of Congress' recent amendment to FACTA, H.R. 4008. (Minute Order dated Sept. 8, 2008.) Plaintiff thereafter filed his Renewed Motion for Class Certification, and a Corrected Renewed Motion for Class Certification on September 22, 2008 (docket nos. 48, 50).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

" Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a ‘ rigorous analysis' to determine whether the party seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Rule 23." Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1233 (9th Cir.1996)). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of demonstrating that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one requirement of Rule 23(b) has been met. Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 474 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir.2007).

Page 649

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, one or more members of a class may sue as representative parties on behalf of the entire class only if all of the following four elements are met:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a).1

In addition, the Court must find that one of the conditions of Rule 23(b) has been satisfied. Rule 23(b) provides that a class action may be maintained if: (1) the prosecution of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP