Proposed Order — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 130.1)

Full text

         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC       Document 130-1   Filed 11/09/22   Page 1 of 3




 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10                            SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12   CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ,            Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
13   individually and on behalf of all others
     similarly situated,                        [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
14                                              MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
                               Plaintiffs,
15
                 v.
                                                Hon. Edward M. Chen
16
     THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
17
18                          Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


           [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
                          CASE NO. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
          Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 130-1       Filed 11/09/22     Page 2 of 3




 1          On November 9, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify the following class:
 2                 All persons who, during the limitations period, both resided in the
 3                 state of California and whose information Thomson Reuters made
 4                 available for sale through CLEAR without their consent. 1
 5          Having considered Plaintiffs’ motion, reply, and supporting materials, Defendant’s
 6   opposition and supporting materials, and the arguments made by the parties at the class
 7   certification hearing, and having conducted a rigorous analysis of the requirements of
 8   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for class
 9   certification and enters the following order.
10          Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23(a): the classes contain well over 40
11   individuals, satisfying the numerosity requirement; there are numerous questions of law and
12   fact common to the class for each of Plaintiffs’ claims, satisfying the commonality
13   requirement; the claims and defenses of the representatives are typical of those of the classes,
14   satisfying the typicality requirement; and Plaintiffs and their counsel will adequately
15   represent the interests of the proposed class, satisfying the adequacy requirement.
16          Plaintiffs’ claims also meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Rule 23(b)(2)
17   certification of Plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim is warranted because
18   Thomson Reuters’ allegedly unlawful conduct can be “remedied by a single classwide
19   order.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 360 (2011). In addition, Rule 23(b)(3) class
20   certification of Plaintiffs’ UCL and unjust-enrichment claims are appropriate because
21   common issues predominate over individual ones, proceeding as a class action will be
22   superior to individual litigations, and the requested monetary relief is capable of
23   measurement on a classwide basis. See, e.g., Allegra v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., 341 F.R.D. 373,
24   460 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) (certifying California unjust-enrichment class and collecting cases); see
25   also Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 34 (2013).
26
27
     1 Excluded from this class definition are “any officers and directors of Thomson Reuters;
28   Class Counsel; and the judicial officer(s) presiding over this action and the members of
     his/her immediate family and judicial staff.”
                                                   1
            [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
                               CASE NO. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
          Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 130-1        Filed 11/09/22   Page 3 of 3




 1          Accordingly, the Court certifies the requested class of Californians, as defined above,
 2   under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and/or (23)(b)(3).
 3          The Court appoints Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz as representatives of the
 4   California Class; and it appoints Gibbs Law Group LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
 5   PLLC as Class Counsel.
 6          Within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall submit a schedule for submission and
 7   approval of a plan to distribute notice to the certified class.
 8
 9
10   Dated: ________________________                    ________________________________
                                                        HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN
11
                                                        United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

                                           2
            [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
                           CASE NO. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.130.1.pdf

Size

178,916 bytes

SHA-256

064edd1587c5ff76761d4bfc1ae22e2e5b0dd994928d50b9a6647e46cd81642b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.130.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)