Consumer Class Actions and Mass Torts : Class Action Lawyer & Attorney : J. Russell Jackson : Skadden Law Firm : Complex Class Actions : Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts Law Blog

Last week the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion that highlights the fact that no matter how broadly you draft the release in a class action settlement, you can't necessarily count on a subsequent court enforcing it.

In Hesse v. Sprint Corp., No. 08-35235, Slip op. (9th Cir. Mar. 2010), plaintiffs brought a class action against Sprint, alleging that it improperly charged Washington State's business and operations tax as a line item to its customers when the law disallows such a pass-through and instead requires it to be part of the company's "operating overhead."  Plaintiffs assert causes of action under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Sprint moved for summary judgment in the trial court, holding that the action was barred by the release and judgment in a nationwide class action settlement entered by a Kansas state court (the "Benney Settlement") in 2006.  The Benney Settlement involved a class of Sprint customers who were charged various federal regulatory fees between 2000 and 2006.  The class in the Benney Settlement released:

any and all claims  . . . that have been, could have been, or in the future might be asserted in the [Benney] Action[] or in any other court or proceeding which relate in any way to the allegations that . . . Sprint failed to properly disclose or otherwise improperly charged for surcharges, regulatory fees, or excise taxes, including but not limited to the [federal] Regulatory Fees; and all other causes of action . . . whether based on federal, state, or local statute . . . that have been, could have been, may be, or could be alleged or asserted by any Class member . . . against [Sprint] relating to . . . the subject matter of any of the claims alleged in the Benney Action.  

Slip op. at 3852.

The plaintiffs in Hesse admittedly were members of the Benney class.  The question, then, was whether the release in the Benney Settlement precluded plaintiffs' claims premised on Sprint's charging of a state-law tax (Washington's B&O tax) when the underlying claim in the Benney action had been the charging of federal regulatory taxes.

The Ninth Circuit held that "the release cannot preclude the Washington Plaintiffs' claims because the Benney Class Plaintiff did not adequately represent the Washington Plaintiffs and because the Washington Plaintiffs' claims are based on a set of facts different from those underlying the claims settled in the Benney Settlement."  Id. at 3854.

The Ninth Circuit cited Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996) to conclude that although the subsequent class could not mount an all-out collateral attack on the prior state court judgment, it could seek limited review of whether the procedures in the prior litigation afforded them due process.  Slip op. at 3855.  The Ninth Circuit found that the Kansas court had not made an explicit finding that the class representative in the Benney Settlement adequately represented class members who also had claims based on state taxes.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit undertook its own analysis of the adequacy of representation in the Benney Settlement.

The Ninth Circuit held that because the named plaintiff in the Benney Settlement -- who, like me, hails from Missouri -- did not have claims based on Washington's B&O tax, he did not adequately represent the plaintiffs in the Hesse class.  This was not only because he did not "vigorously prosecute the claims relevant to this case," but also because he "had an insurmountable conflict of interest with those members of the class."  Id. at 3857-58.

The Ninth Circuit took care to indicate that it was not invalidating the Benney Settlement -- at least as to the release of all claims pertaining to the federal regulatory fees at issue in Benney.  Instead, it held "only that any release of the B&O Tax Surcharge claims at issue in this case by the judgment approving the Benney Settlement would violate due process."  Id. at n.5.

So are class action settlements only able to release the claims that the plaintiffs brought in the case?  The Ninth Circuit said no, a release may be broader than the claims stated, but only to a point:

A settlement agreement may preclude a party from bringing a related claim in the future "even though the claim was not presented and might not have been presentable in the class action," but only where the released claim is "based on the identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class action."

Id. at 3860 (quoting Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2008)).  The Ninth Circuit concluded that because "the Washington Plaintiffs' claims do not share an identical factual predicate with the claims resolved in the Benney Settlement," they were not derived from the same transaction or occurrence and thus could not be precuded by the Benney Settlement.

The Hesse opinion is an important read for all counsel who draft class action settlements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On deck for this morning is another case that brings home the message:  read those service contracts, folks, because they really can cut off your legal options.

In Minnick v. Clearwire US, LLC, 2010 WL 431879 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 05, 2010), customers sued the provider of wireless Internet and telephone service over the early termination fee ("ETF") contained in its contract.  The wireless service, plaintiffs alleged, was unreliable, slow and often non-existent.  But when they went to terminate service, the defendant pointed to the contract, which included an ETF of $220 less $5 per month of service the customer had since the beginning of the two year service contract.  

US District Judge Marsha Pechman -- who has previously ruled on Microsoft matters discussed in this blog -- granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

She began her analysis by looking at what law would apply.  The contract provided that Washington or Delaware law would control.  Plaintiffs identified no difference in the laws, so the court did not ultimately make a choice of law determination.

The gist of plaintiffs' causes of action was that the ETF was an unconscionable penalty and should be disregarded.  The defendant convinced the court, however, that it was more analogous to an "alternative performance provision" that gave customers choices at the outset for how they would perform their obligations under the contract.

The court also analyzed UCC 2-302 -- even though this was a contract for services, not goods -- and observed that "unconscionability" is a defense to enforcement of a cause of action, but is not in itself a basis for restitutionary relief.

In analyzing the claim under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, the court noted that plaintiffs had two options:  either the actions had to have the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public, or they had to constitute a per se unfair trade practice.  The plaintiffs disclaimed a deception-based approach -- presumably since all of the contract terms were disclosed to customers before establishing service -- and instead relied on the "per se unlawful" prong of the CPA.  But all they could point to were common law precedents about "unlawful penalties" in contracts.  The Washington Supreme Court has held that the "per se unlawful" prong of the statute only applies to practices that the Legislature has declared unlawful.  Thus, common law precedents did not cut it and the CPA count was dismissed.

Plaintiffs also asserted an unjust enrichment count.  But "[u]nder Washington law, a plaintiff who is a party to a 'valid express contract is bound by the provisions of that contract' and may not bring a claim for unjust enrichment for issues arising under the contract's subject matter.  Id. at *5 (citation omitted).  Plaintiffs argued that they were merely engaging in "alternative pleading," but the court noted that the contract also had a severability provision, so even if the ETF provision were unenforceable, the remainder of the contract would survive and govern plaintiffs' payment obligations. 

The court also rejected plaintiffs' breach of contract count based on the allegedly lousy service they received from the defendant.  The contract provided that customer must notify the defendant in writing within 20 days if they disputed charges, and it limited damages to a credit for the customers' prorated monthly charges.  Even these were not available absent a written request.  Because the plaintiffs had not alleged compliance with these provisions, the court granted dismissal of the breach of contract count.

Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' count for false advertising under the CPA.  The court noted that no plaintiff identified statements that they relied upon, and therefore "they have not alleged a plausible basis to identify CPA causation."  Moreover, the court pointed to the FAQ section of the defendant's website, which "state[d] that the quality of service may vary depending on geography and modem placement."

Minnick is an important reminder that service contracts matter, and that they can be important tools to prevent class action litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recent decision of the Southern District of New York reminds us that even where the subject of the suit is a standardized contract, there can still be individual issues that preclude class certification.

In Spagnola v. Chubb Corp., 2010 WL 46017 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2010), some insureds sued their insurer, Great Northern Insurance Company, along with two related insurers over policies that allegedly were supposed to increase coverage daily to reflect the current effect of inflation. Plaintiffs claimed that the insurers left them underinsured and sued under a variety of theories.  The district court previously had dismissed all of the causes of action, and the Second Circuit had affirmed dismissal of all but the breach of contract count -- to the extent that it was based on the increase in coverage and premiums in a way that did not reflect current property costs and values.  Id. at *2. The Second Circuit also had instructed that the voluntary payment doctrine -- which precludes a plaintiff from recovering for payments made with full knowledge of the facts -- was not ripe to support dismissal as pled here at the motion to dismiss stage.

On remand, Judge Harold Baer, Jr. considered two basic questions:  (1) could plaintiffs maintain suit against the "related" companies, and (2) should it grant the defendant's motion to deny class certification.  

Plaintiffs' policies were written by a subsidiary of the Chubb Corporation.  In addition to their insurer, Plaintiffs sued Chubb and its largest subsidiary, Federal Insurance Company, which allegedly manages the other Chubb subsidiaries.  Of course, plaintiffs were asserting a breach of contract theory only at this point, and they had a contract only with Great Northern; neither Chubb nor FIC were signatories to the policies.  Judge Baer thus considered whether plaintiffs had adequately alleged alter ego liability or an agency theory to keep the two non-signatory defendants in the case.  

Although plaintiffs pled a credit agreement that considered Chubb and its subsidiaries as a whole, as well as the overlap of senior management, officers and directors, and advertising that refers to the "Chubb Group," the court held that it was insufficient to pierce the corporate veil:

Although Plaintiffs have alleged facts to suggest some overlap between the operations between Chubb and its subsidiaries, this overlap is not unusual and Plaintiffs' allegations do not rise to the level that indicates the kind of complete domination and control that is required under the first prong of the alter-ego analysis.  Indeed, courts routinely refuse to pierce the corporate veil based on allegations limited to the existence of shared office space or overlapping management, allegations that one company is the wholly-owned subsidiary of another, or that companies are to be "considered as a whole."

Id. at *7 (citation omitted).

In considering the agency theory, the court held that plaintiffs had pled no facts establishing that Chubb or FIC had actual authority to act as Great Northern's agent.  However, the court held that plaintiffs had pled enough facts to keep Chubb in the case at the motion to dismiss stage on the issue of apparent authority: 

Specifically, Plaintiffs have alleged that the cover letter enclosing the policies bore the Chubb trademarked logo; that an integrated advertising and marketing campaign relating to the Policies referred only generally to "Chubb"; that insureds under the Policies were directed to make all inquiries to Chubb and to make payments "payable to Chubb."  The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they have thus sufficiently alleged that insureds could have reasonably believed that they had contracted with Chubb and not Great Northern, notwithstanding the express terms of the policies.

Id. at *10.  The court, however, dismissed the complaint against FIC because no such evidence was pled against it.

In considering the defendant's motion to deny class certification, the court held that the plaintiffs had satisfied the elements of commonality and typicality, but they failed the elements of adequacy of representation, predominance and superiority.  For some of the policies, the insurer bore the risk of underinsurance, but for others, that risk was borne by the insured.  Plaintiffs, who held policies where the insurer bore the risk, could not be expected to adequately represent the interests of those with policies where they bear the risk of loss.  Moreover, one of the plaintiffs had purchased his policies outside the defined class period and was a close personal friend of class counsel.  Accordingly, the adequacy of representation element was not satisfied.

In analyzing predominance, the court concluded that the class members' claims were not capable of classwide proof, but would require an analysis of individual issues, including:

the unique characteristics of each class member's home, whether each policyholder's coverage was actually increased using CPI or some other guideline, the amount of the increase, whether the policy requested that the increase be waived or revalued, and actual replacement cost of each policyholder's home.  Compounded with these individual questions is the lingering concern relating to the potential unique defense of voluntary payment, among others.  Ultimately, the Court or the jury will be tasked with the determination, for each individual class member, whether they knew or should have known of the circumstances surrounding the increases in their respective coverages but continued to pay, or whether such payment was the result of a mistake of fact or law relating to their obligation to pay.

Id. at *19.  Accordingly, the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) was not met.  Similarly, the need for individual mini-trials to resolve class members' claims and the affirmative defense of the voluntary payment doctrine made the class action fail the superiority requirement as well.

The decision in Spagnola is a clear-eyed analysis of how claims relating to standardized contracts can nevertheless involve individual issues that make classwide adjudication impossible.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

That Fred Burnside gets TWO gold stars today!  First, he informed me that the Ninth Circuit refused to hear the appeal of the decision denying class certification in the Xbox litigation.  Now he shares with us a well-written opinion from the Washington Supreme Court holding that a trial court in wireless telephone litigation correctly refused to certify a nationwide class action.

The decision in Schnall v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., No. 80572-5 (Wash. Jan. 21, 2010) (en banc) is particularly timely because its reasoning on the Washington Consumer Protection Act stands in stark contrast to the decision I highlighted on Tuesday, which had effectively read the causation requirement out of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  But I've gotten ahead of myself.

In Schnall, plaintiffs had brought a putative nationwide class action against AT&T Wireless, claiming that its collection of a "universal connectivity charge" violated the customers' contracts and violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act.  The trial court had refused to certify the class, but the intermediate appellate court had reversed, reasoning that the challenge to a standardized contract was capable of class adjudication.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the class certification, making four important points.  First, the court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in holding that the need to apply the law of 50 states made the putative nationwide class fail the predominance requirement.  The Washington Supremes observed that the trial court was correct in honoring the choice of law provision in the contracts, which required the application of the law of the place where the customer signed the contract.  Further, it cited at length the federal precedents recognizing that the need to apply the law of 50 states generally makes class certification untenable, because the variations in state laws may swamp common issues and defeat predominance.  Slip op. at 11.  For example, in the context of the Schnall complaint, the court observed that, for those states that recognize it, "[t]he availability of the voluntary payment doctrine alone could abrogate AT&T's liability for all customers who voluntarily paid the [fee] after receiving the informational flyer."  Id. at 12.

Second, the Washington Supremes noted in their analysis of the superiority factor that:

Washington has no interest in seeing contracts executed by AT&T representatives in other states with citizens of those states examined and adjudicated in Washington courts.  Certified as a nationwide class action, this case would present an unwarranted and unnecessary burden on the state judicial system, all at a large cost to taxpayers.  There is no sound reason in this case for this court to force Washington trial courts to entertain the contract claims of citizens from around the nation.  Their state courts are equally as prepared, if not better situated to apply the contract laws of their states.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying nationwide certification of the plaintiffs' contract claims.

Id. at 15 (citation omitted).

Third, the Washington Supremes recognized that the state's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") does not apply extraterritorially to provide a cause of action to nonresidents whose claims arose in other states.  Id. at 16.  This geographic restriction is inherent in the language of the statute, but as the court recognized, it also emanates from the CPA's "history as a tool used by the State attorney general to protect the citizens of Washington."  Id.  The AG, the court noted, has no power beyond the state's borders and is charged with protecting only Washington residents.  Thus, regardless of whether it is the official Attorney General or a "private attorney general" suing to enforce the statute, the jurisdictional limitation applies and a "private claimant cannot state a CPA claim by proving the defendant's practices affect the public interest or the citizens of another state."  Id. at 17 (emphasis in original).

Fourth -- and this is where the decision stands in stark contrast to the one I discussed on Tuesday -- the Washington Supremes reiterated that even for Washington plaintiffs, proof of causation is an essential element of a CPA claim.  Id. at 18.  Indeed, "proximate cause in a class action cannot be established by 'mere payment' of an allegedly injurious charge."  Id.  Rather, "in the context of private CPA actions where plaintiffs seek damages, more than a mere capacity to deceive must be shown to establish 'some causal link between defendant's unfair act and [consumer's] injury," and, "[i]n the context of private misrepresentation cases, a plaintiff can satisfy the 'but for' causation requirement by showing she relied on the misrepresentation."  Id. at 20 (citation omitted).  In the context of the Schnall case, that meant that where the plaintiff actually knew that the charge was being levied, the alleged "misrepresentation" had been eliminated as the "but for" cause of the injury.  Id. at 21.  Accordingly, even for Washington residents to whom the CPA applied, the issue of causation could be an individual issue that would defeat predominance.  But because the trial court had not analyzed that question sufficiently, the Washington Supremes remanded the case with instruction to consider the question in the context of a statewide class.

The court's conclusion forcefully shuts Washington's doors to putative nationwide class actions:

In sum, we agree with the trial court that this action should not be certified as a nationwide class action.  Washington need not apply its Consumer Protection Act, or its contract laws, to the citizens of other states in order to protect the interests of the citizens of Washington.  A nationwide class would be unmanageable and unduly burdensome on the trial court and the state judicial system and serve no real benefit to plaintiffs who are free to bring statewide class actions in their home states. 

Id. at 22.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Well, this is a little awkward.  I mean, it's the New Year . . . Christmas is over . . . and I didn't get you anything.  I got a Nano and a couple of gift cards for iTunes.  But what to get you . . .

I know!  A boxed set of three decisions involving Apple, circa December 2009!

In Hovespian v. Apple, Inc., 2009 WL 5069144 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2009), the court granted Apple's motion to dismiss and its motion to strike class allegations.  (It was a good holiday for Apple, too, apparently.)  Plaintiff -- a Florida resident -- had brought a class action in California federal court, purporting to represent all people who bought iMAC G5 personal computers.  Plaintiff alleged that the display screen was prone to developing vertical lines that ultimately rendered the screen unusable, that Apple knew of this fact and concealed it, refusing to repair the machines because the lines developed after the one year express warranty had run on the machine.  (Plaintiff bought his Mac in October 2006, but the lines did not appear until March 2008.)  Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") pled causes of action under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, for fraudulent omission, for unjust enrichment, and for a declaration that the one-year warranty limitation was unenforceable.

The court dismissed plaintiff's CLRA claim without leave to amend because it failed to state with particularity -- as required by Rule 9(b) -- "when and where Apple made an affirmative misrepresentation, if any, that contradicts its alleged omissions."  Id. at *3.  The complaint contained only generalized allegations that Apple had exclusive knowledge of the problem and concealed it.  This was insufficient -- without affirmative statements that contradict the omitted information -- to state a CLRA claim.

The court also granted dismissal of the UCL claim without leave to amend.  Citing to Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008), the court held that an alleged defect that may shorten the life span of a product that performs as warranted throughout the express warranty term does not cause a substantial injury to consumers and cannot serve as the basis for a UCL claim.

The court granted dismissal of the common law fraudulent omission claim for the same reason it dismissed the CLRA claim, but it made the dismissal without prejudice to give plaintiff leave to re-plead to elaborate on what duty to speak Apple had that it allegedly had violated.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim with prejudice, holding that an unjust enrichment claim that is premised on the same course of conduct that underlies the statutory and common law tort claims cannot stand alone as an independent claim for relief.  Id. at *5.  It fails for the same reason the other claims fail.

The court also granted Apple's motion to strike the class allegations, citing its authority under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A), 23(d)(1)(D), and 12(f).  Plaintiff defined the class as all persons who purchased iMAC G5 personal computers from Defendant Apple, Inc.  The court held that the complaint failed to state a valid class action claim against Apple:

First, the class is not ascertainable because it includes members who have not experienced any problems with their iMAC display screens.  Such members have no injury and no standing to sue.  Second, the class is not maintainable under Rule 23(b)(3) because it includes members who can have no claim against Apple.  For example, the putative class includes members who (a) did not purchase the particular iMac model or the type of iMac screen that Hovespian alleges is defective and (b) experienced the alleged defect after their warranty expired.  Finally, the class is not maintainable under Rule 23(b)(1) or Rule 23(b)(2).  These types of class actions are not suitable for actions where recovery of money damages is the primary relief sought by the plaintiff.

Id. at *6.  The court struck the class allegations without prejudice, thus allowing amendment after plaintiff amended his fraudulent concealment claim.

The second case in our Apple boxed set was well reported on:  Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 2009 WL 5125776 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2009).  Birdsong involved a class action challenge to Apple's iPod based on the potential for hearing loss.  Plaintiffs alleged that the iPod was defective in that it could achieve sounds of 115 decibels, the long battery life allows those sounds to be played over long periods of time, the ear buds are designed to be placed deep in the ears (rather than over the ears), the ear buds lack noise cancelling properties, and the iPod lacks a volume meter that tells users they are listening at dangerous levels. 

Apple includes this warning with each iPod:

Warning:  Permanent hearing loss may occur if earphones or headphones are used at high volume.  You can adapt over time to a higher volume of sound, which may sound normal but can be damaging to your hearing.  Set your iPod's volume to a safe level before that happens.  If you experience ringing in your ears, reduce the volume or discontinue use of your iPod.

Id. at *1.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the implied warranty of merchantability count, observing that nothing in the complaint says the iPod is defective for its ordinary purpose of listening to music.  Rather, the statements in the complaint merely suggest that users have the option of using the iPod in a risky manner, but it does not suggest the product lacks any minimum level of quality.  Where, as here, the complaint merely seeks additional features to make the product safer, it fails to allege the sort of lack of baseline utility that would support a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability claim.  Id. at *2-*3.

Plaintiffs abandoned the breach of express warranty and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claims on appeal. 

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed dismissal of the Unfair Competition Law claim because they failed to allege the requisite injury to have standing to bring the claim.  To begin with, the complaints did not allege that the plaintiffs themselves ever suffered hearing loss or were at risk of imminent hearing loss.  Nor did they allege that plaintiffs themselves ever used their iPods in a way that exposed them to a risk of hearing loss.  Rather, they cast their allegations as potential impacts on unidentified users.  This was insufficient to meet the injury requirement for Article III standing.  Id. at *4.

The court also held that plaintiffs failed to allege an economic harm (lost money or property) that would confer standing to sue under the UCL because "the alleged loss in value does not constitute a distinct and palpable injury that is actual or imminent because it rests on a hypothetical risk of hearing loss to other consumers who may or may not choose to use their iPods in a risky manner."  Id. at *5.  And the court rejected plaintiffs' "benefit of the bargain" theory, holding that the "plaintiffs' alleged injury in fact is premised on the loss of a 'safety' benefit that was not part of the bargain to begin with."  Id.

The third case in our boxed set is a lump of coal:  Owens v. Apple, Inc., 2009 WL 5126940 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2009).  Plaintiffs brought a putative nationwide class action, alleging that Apple breached a contract and violated various consumer fraud statutes when it sold gift cards to people with the representation that songs cost $.99 a song, and then on April 7, 2009 raised the price of certain songs to $1.29.

Apple moved to dismiss, asserting a privity defense to the breach of contract claims.  The court rejected it outright, where the gift card at issue was marketed by Apple and could be used only on Apple's website. 

The court also held that there was nothing vague about the representation:  "Songs are 99 cents, and videos start at $1.99."  The complaint alleged plaintiffs relied on the price guarantee as part of the basis of the bargain, and that plaintiffs were damaged as a result of the price increase.  The court refused to dismiss the breach of contract counts.

The court also refused to dismiss the consumer fraud counts.  Apple had argued that the statement "Songs are 99 cents," did not mean that the price of all songs was 99 cents, but rather that some songs were 99 cents.  Plaintiffs argued that this interpretation was a "slippery slope" that would allow Apple to market its gift cards in the same way so long as one song was 99 cents.  The court refused to find that the phrase was not deceptive as a matter of law.

So that's it.  A boxed set of Apple decisions for you.  If they don't fit and you want to exchange them for a sweater vest I received this Christmas, just let me know.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It often seems that courts addressing consumer claims seem to absolve consumers of any personal responsibility to manage their finances.  Judge Michael J. Reagan of the Southern District of Illinois -- a former president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association -- recently issued a refreshing opinion in a telemarketing case that squarely places responsibility on the consumer to monitor what his money is being spent on and to read his mail.  See Spivey v. Adaptive Marketing LLC, No. 07-cv-0779-MJR (S.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2009).

In Spivey, a putative class action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant used telemarketing transactions to "cram" consumers' debit and credit cards with unauthorized transactions without the cardholder's knowledge.  The complaint asserted two counts:  (1) breach of contract, and (2) unjust enrichment.  Defendant moved for summary judgment, and the court granted it.

Plaintiff had called a telemarketing number to order an Atkins diet product.  The conversation was recorded, revealing that plaintiff was also offered a free 30-day membership to HomeWorks, a membership program offering discounts at numerous chain stores.  The salesperson explained that after 30 days, if Plaintiff did not cancel, the membership would be automatically extended and Plaintiff's card would be charged a $96 annual fee once each year.  He could cancel at any time, and the full details of the program would be contained in a welcome kit that would arrive in the mail.

Plaintiff claimed not to remember receiving the "welcome kit," alleging that if he did receive it, the kit was designed to look like junk mail and he threw it away without opening it.  But the court employed the "mailbox rule" to impose the written terms of the welcome kit to Plaintiff's transaction.  The mailbox rule says that where a letter is properly addressed and mailed, there is a presumption that it reached its destination in the usual time and was read by the recipient.  The defendant testified that it was its practice to send the welcome kit to each new member in a membership program.  Plaintiff's testimony that he did not recall receiving the welcome kit was not enough to rebut the presumption of the mailbox rule.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff's argument that written terms sent after the creation of an oral contract cannot govern the relationship.  The court noted that the written terms often follow in the mail after a consumer transaction, and those terms are held to govern the transactions.  The court observed: 

In sum, Adaptive invited acceptance by conduct, i.e., by sending the kit to Spivey and allowing him the opportunity to call within 30 days to cancel the agreement or to call within the first year to receive a full refund.  By not calling the toll-free number in the first 30 days (or even in the first year) -- as advised by the telemarketer and set forth in the agreement -- Spivey accepted the offered services and the terms and conditions under which they were offered.  He had a clear mechanism and reasonable opportunity to reject them.  Spivey is bound by the written terms provided after the transaction. 

Slip op. at 13.  The court also noted that the written agreement had an integration clause and that the terms of plaintiff's posited oral contract did not contradict the written contract.

Analyzing plaintiff's claim of "cramming" -- i.e., placing unauthorized charges on credit cards with the hope the consumer will pay the balance without noticing them -- the court began by observing that the charges were not unauthorized.  Rather, both the oral and written contracts authorized them.

The court also held that the "voluntary payment doctrine" is an independent alternative ground for dismissing Plaintiff's claims.  The doctrine holds that "'a plaintiff who voluntarily pays money in reply to an incorrect or illegal claim of right cannot recover that payment unless he can show fraud, coercion, or mistake of fact.'"  Slip op. at 16 (citation omitted).

The court noted that plaintiff paid the annual charges for four years without ever questioning the payments.  The charges were clearly labeled "HomeWorks Plus," and the statement provided a toll-free number to inquire about any charge.  The court concluded that "[t]o the extent that Spivey was ignorant of the charges on his credit card statement, it was because he failed or refused to apprise himself of that knowledge, and he must bear the consequences."  Slip op. at 17.

Accordingly, the court granted judgment to defendant on the breach of contract count.  The court also granted judgment for the defendant on the unjust enrichment count because unjust enrichment -- doctrine that implies a contract in law where none exists -- is not available where a contract controls the relationship between the parties.  Also, the voluntary payment doctrine applies to the unjust enrichment count as well.  Slip op. at 19.

Judge Reagan's opinion in Spivey is an important reminder that we as consumers have responsibilities -- including to read our mail and monthly manage our finances and credit card charges.  Where we fail to do that, caveat emptor applies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As someone who has drafted his fair share of class action settlements, I can tell you that I always get a little nervous when I start reading a case in which a court is required to construe the language and effect of a prior class action settlement.  I had that same trepidation when I picked up Lester Building Systems v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 2009 WL 537501 (Minn. March 5, 2009).

The plaintiff, Lester Building Systems ("Lester"), makes hog barns, which it sells directly to farmers and indirectly through a network of independent builder-dealers.  In the early 1990s, Lester stopped using plywood in favor of an external siding product called "Inner-Seal," which was made by Louisiana-Pacific.  Around that same time, Louisiana-Pacific started receiving complaints from around the country about its Inner-Seal product swelling and deteriorating.  Eventually, Louisiana-Pacific ended up settling a nationwide class action in federal court that resolved all potential Inner-Seal claims.  The opt-out settlement did not require Louisiana-Pacific to fund the settlement all at once; rather, it was to make annual payments.  The claims ended up far out-pacing Louisiana-Pacific's contributions, and many class members were forced to either accept immediately-reduced payouts on their claims, or wait until such time as Louisiana Pacific could make a full payment.

Lester had bought around $3.4 million of Inner-Seal and used it to make some 2,600 hog barns.  Many of its customers were not happy.  Lester estimated that to repair its customers' barns would cost $13.2 million.  Many of Lester's customers, however, chose an early payout from the settlement fund of only $640,000.

In negotiating the settlement, Louisiana-Pacific -- like many product manufacturers -- had tried to protect not only itself, but also the intermediate sellers of its products by including within the settlement a complete release of liability for them:  "To the extent claims may be asserted against persons or entities in the chain of distribution, installation or finishing of the Exterior Inner-Seal siding, the Releasing Party shall be deemed to and does hereby release and forever discharge those persons or entities from claims based solely on distribution, handling, installation, specification, or use of the Exterior Inner-Seal Siding."  2009 WL 537501 at *5 (quoting the settlement).

Lester was far from grateful for such protection, however.  In fact, it sued Louisiana Pacific in Minnesota state court, asserting theories of breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties, and fraud.  Lester won at trial handily:  the jury awarded Lester $3.4 million for Lester's purchase price for the Inner-Seal products, $10.2 million for lost profits up through 2002, $2.8 million for the cost of restoring goodwill, and $13.2 million for the estimated cost of repairing its customers' barns.

Louisiana Pacific argued that the cost of repairing Lester's customer's barns was not a proper element of damages because Lester had no legal obligation to conduct such repairs, since it had received a full and complete release from the federal settlement.  Lester countered that even if it did not have a legal obligation to make such repairs, it had a practical business obligation to do so, and Louisiana-Pacific should pay for it. 

The Minnesota Supreme Court examined the language of the federal settlement and held that it clearly and unambiguously released all entities in the chain of distribution -- including Lester -- from liability to repair the farmers' barns.  Moreover, the court held, Lester already had received from the jury awards for lost profits and loss of goodwill, and thus no "practical business obligation" could exist to support the so-called consequential repair costs.  Without Lester having a legal obligation to repair its customers' barns, Lester could not force Louisiana-Pacific to pay for it.

Lester Building Systems is another good decision for my class action settlements file that squarely considers the language of an intermediary release provision and gives it full force and effect.  The irony, of course, is that the release ultimately operated to the detriment of the intermediate seller, who instead wanted to extract money from the manufacturer to pay for repairs to its customers' barns. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks