Court filing
Proposed Order — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 150.5)
No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 150-5 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150-5 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 4
1 Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567 Gabriella Gallego, Bar No. 324226
SFahringer@perkinscoie.com GGallego@perkinscoie.com
2 Nicola C. Menaldo, pro hac vice PERKINS COIE LLP
3 NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com 3150 Porter Drive
Erin K. Earl, pro hac vice Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
4 EEarl@perkinscoie.com Telephone: 650.838.4300
Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice Facsimile: 650.838.4350
5 AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP Hayden M. Schottlaender, pro hac vice
6 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
7 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 PERKINS COIE LLP
Telephone: 206.359.8000 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
8 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Dallas, TX 75201-3347
Telephone: 214.965.7700
9 Attorneys for Defendant Facsimile: 214.965.7799
Thomson Reuters Corporation
10
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14 CAT BROOKS and RASHEED Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
15 all others similarly situated, [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS
16 Plaintiffs, CERTIFICATION
17 v.
18 THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
19 Defendant.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150-5 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 4
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER
2 Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz have filed a Motion for Class Certification,
3 Doc. 124-03 (“Motion”). Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation opposes that Motion. Having
4 considered the Motion, Defendant’s Opposition, and all associated briefing, documents, and
5 evidence on the record at the time of this Order, Plaintiffs’ Motion is hereby DENIED for the
6 following reasons.
7 First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. To maintain a case in federal
8 court, a plaintiff must show: “(i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized,
9 and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the
10 injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190,
11 2203 (2021) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). Plaintiffs have
12 not shown that the injury they assert here bears a “close relationship to harms traditionally
13 recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit.” Id. at 2204. Plaintiffs have also failed to show that
14 their alleged “injury” (a loss of control over information relating to them) was “caused by the
15 defendant.” Id. at 2203.
16 Second, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule
17 of Civil Procedure 23(a). For at least two reasons, Plaintiffs are subject to atypical defenses such
18 that they will not “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
19 23(a)(3)-(4). Plaintiffs have not “lost money or property” as required for statutory standing under
20 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 322 (2011). And
21 Plaintiffs are self-admitted public figures, subject to unique defenses relating both to the amount
22 of information already out of their “control,” and about the public utility and benefits of such
23 information being publicly accessible.
24 Plaintiffs have also not shown that there are common questions of law or fact in this case
25 that would generate “common answers apt to drive resolution of the litigation.” Wal-Mart Stores,
26 Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). The Court cannot apply California unjust enrichment or
27 unfair competition laws extraterritorially, as Plaintiffs’ class definition would require. Adobe Sys.
28 Inc. v. Blue Source Grp., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 945, 972 (N.D. Cal. 2015). And neither of
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -2- [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150-5 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 4
1 Plaintiffs’ remaining claims center on issues capable of common resolution. Unjust enrichment
2 requires a detailed review of equities between each class member and Defendant that will change
3 for each class member. First Nationwide Sav. v. Perry, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1657, 1663 (1992); see
4 also 1 Joseph M. McLaughlin, McLaughlin on Class Actions § 5:60 (19th ed. 2022) (“unjust
5 enrichment claims usually are not amenable to class treatment”). Plaintiffs’ unfair competition
6 claim similarly requires individualized analyses; to determine whether Defendant’s actions are
7 “unfair” for purposes of imposing liability, the Court must weigh the Plaintiffs’ allegedly lost
8 “control” of their information against the public benefits of Defendant’s conduct. See Herskowitz
9 v. Apple, Inc., 301 F.R.D. 460, 477 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (denying class certification because these
10 assessments under the UCL are inherently individualized inquiries).
11 Third, Plaintiffs have not proven that they satisfy either Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12 23(b)(3) or 23(b)(2). Under Rule 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs have not shown that common issues
13 predominate over individual ones. Individual issues abound here, including: the information at
14 issue for each class member, the extent to which that class member exercised prior control over
15 that information, whether that information was disclosed by Defendant to any users of
16 Defendant’s CLEAR platform, and for what purpose(s) those users may have accessed that
17 information (including for uses that may have benefitted either the class member or the public at
18 large). Plaintiffs have also not shown that class treatment would be a superior method of
19 adjudicating this controversy—not only because of the individualized issues described above, but
20 also because balancing the public’s interest in products like CLEAR with Californians’ desires to
21 control their information is a task best suited to the California legislature. Mazza v. Am. Honda
22 Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581, 592 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled, in part, on other grounds by Olean
23 Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022). And
24 under Rule 23(b)(2), Plaintiffs have neither described the “general contours of an injunction that
25 would provide relief to the whole class,” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 689 n.35 (9th Cir. 2014),
26 nor established that injunctive relief here would be “appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”
27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -3- [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150-5 Filed 01/26/23 Page 4 of 4
1
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4 DATED: ____________________ __________________________________
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
5 United States District Judge
6
7 Submitted by:
8 PERKINS COIE LLP
9
10 By: /s/ Susan D. Fahringer
Susan D. Fahringer
11
Attorneys for Defendant
12 Thomson Reuters Corporation
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -4- [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.374304.150.5.pdf
- Size
- 138,105 bytes
- SHA-256
- 81855591110376374c3b9167c0f6db813c2f135c9a2b664cc56a37ad11d46a40
- Original
- PACER (login required)