Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01380/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01380-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 KEVIN PARK, 

12 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Plaintiff, 

CASE NO. 12cv1380-LAB (JMA) 

ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

13 

14 

15 

WEBLOYAL TY.COM, INC., 

Defendant. 

16 The Court dismissed the complaint on June 22, 2015, relying in part on Plaintiff Kevin 

17 Park's admission that some of the charges had been refunded. The Court reasoned that, 

18 to the extent Park's claims arose from refunded charges, his claims were moot. (Docket no. 

19 42 at 3:26-4:5.) On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and reinstated Park's claims. 

20 Because neither party had drawn the panel's attention to the refund issue and the 

21 jurisdictional problem it presented, the Court itself sent the panel a letter pointing it out, as 

22 provided by Ninth Circuit General Order 12.10. The letter was docketed as item number 53 

23 in the case on appeal, 15-56079, Park v. Webloyalty.com, Inc., and a copy of the letter is 

24 appended to this order as an exhibit. The Court's remarks about the effect of a refund and 

25 the jurisdictional problem are covered in the full paragraph at the bottom of page one of the 

26 letter: 

27 I I I 

28 I I I 

- 1 - 12cv1380 

Case 3:12-cv-01380-LAB-LL Document 71 Filed 09/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
1 Both the second and third amended complaints included claims arising from 

charges that had been refunded, and the EFTA claims arising from those 

2 were dismissed for failure to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. Order of 

Dismissal at 3:27-4:6. Claims by members of the putative class were also 

3 dismissed, in part, for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 9: 1-8. The effect of reversing 

the dismissal of these claims, Memorandum at 6, will be that those claims 

4 cannot be dismissed a second time on the same grounds, even if jurisdiction 

is lacking. To the extent Park's claims arise from refunded charges, this 

5 creates a conflict with the decision in Berry v. Webloyalty.com, Inc., 517 Fed . Appx. 581 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that refunded charges did not amount to 

6 an injury in fact). 

7 After the letter was docketed, the panel made no changes to its order, but instead issued its 

8 mandate and remanded. 

9 After remand , Park filed an amended complaint and Webloyalty moved to dismiss 

10 claims premised on charges that were fully refunded. Web loyalty's motion focuses on Park's 

11 claims under the Restore Online Shopper's Confidence Act (ROSCA), and presents 

12 evidence showing that all of Park's charges were refunded. 

13 If this motion had been filed before appeal, the Court would have required Park to 

14 respond , and the burden would have fallen on him to show that the Court could exercise 

15 jurisdiction over his claims, in accordance with well-established law. In particular, Park would 

16 have been required to show that his claims were not refunded as Webloyalty claims. But the 

17 Ninth Circuit's decision in this case forecloses that option, as it is "law of the case". See 

18 Vizcaino v. United States District Court, 173 F.3d 713, 719 (9th Cir. 1999) ("When acting 

19 under an appellate court's mandate, an inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of 

20 the case[.]") 

21 Webloyalty argues that the panel did not actually decide the jurisdictional question, 

22 pointing out that neither party argued it and that the panel's decision did not mention it. But 

23 the Ninth Circuit, like all other federal courts, has a continuing obligation to consider 

24 jurisdictional questions sua sponte, whenever any doubt arises. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 

25 Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998); WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th 

26 Cir.1997) (en bane). This includes the jurisdictional doctrine of mootness. Dittman v. 

27 California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (91

h Cir. 1999). The panel was fully aware that Park 

28 conceded some of the charges against him had been refunded, and that this Court had 

- 2 - 12cv1380 

Case 3:12-cv-01380-LAB-LL Document 71 Filed 09/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
1 determined that claims arising from those charges were moot. Nevertheless, the panel 

2 reversed, holding those claims should not have been dismissed. The necessary implication 

3 of this decision is that claims arising from refunded charges were not moot. See Snow-Er/in 

4 v. United States, 470 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding issues decided by an appellate 

5 court either explicitly or by necessary implication are law of the case and are binding on a 

6 trial court after remand). Embracing Webloyalty's argument would require the Court to 

7 assume the Ninth Circuit ignored a jurisdictional defect that had been squarely brought to 

8 its attention. The Court can't do this. 

9 While there are some slight differences between the earlier issues and the one 

10 Webloyalty now raises, there are no meaningful distinctions. The Court's earlier ruling 

11 concerned a partial rather than a full refund (and thus a partial rather than a full dismissal), 

12 addressed claims brought under a different statute, and decided the issue on the pleadings 

13 rather than on the basis of evidence. But none of those distinguish the issue Web loyalty now 

14 raises from the one that was before the panel. Constitutional limitations on the Court's 

15 power apply with equal force regardless of whether they apply to part of a claim rather than 

16 the whole claim, what statutory provision the claim arises under, and what stage the litigation 

17 is at. See Biodiversity Legal Foundation v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th Cir. 2002) 

18 Uurisdiction requires that an actual controversy exist at all stages of litigation). 

19 To be clear, the Court acknowledges Webloyalty's position that the panel's decision 

20 in this case is at odds not only with Berry v. Webloyalty, but also with Polo v. lnnoventions 

21 Int'/, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that plaintiff bringing state-law 

22 consumer claims lacked Article Ill standing because the money she paid had been 

23 refunded). Nevertheless, the Court here is bound by the law of the case doctrine and lacks 

24 authority to circumvent the Ninth Circuit's decision. 

25 Webloyalty's motion is SUMMARILY DENIED. 

26 I I I 

27 I I I 

28 I I I 

- 3 - 12cv1380 

Case 3:12-cv-01380-LAB-LL Document 71 Filed 09/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
1 This ruling is not intended as a prediction of how the Court might rule on other issues 

2 such as class certification, Park's appointment as class representative, or any other issue 

3 not raised in Webloyalty's motion. 

4 

5 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

q .'2--Z.. '/ 1 

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 

United States District Judge 

- 4 - 12cv1380 

Case 3:12-cv-01380-LAB-LL Document 71 Filed 09/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
Chambers of 

Larry Alan Burns 

U.S. District Judge 

Molly Dwyer 

United States District Court 

Southern District of California 

333 West Broadway, Suite 1410 

San Diego, California 92101 

April 5. 2017 

Clerk of Court - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

Post Office Box 193939 

San Francisco, CA 94119-3939 

Re: Park v. Webloyalty.com. Inc. 

USCA Case No. 15-56079 

Dear Ms. Dv.ryer: 

Phone: (619) 557-5874 

Fax: (619) 702-9936 

Please be advised that I am aware of an apparent mistake in the memorandum decision by 

the Court of Appeals in Park v. Webloyalry.com. Inc .. 15-56079 filed July 10. 2015 involYing an 

appeal from m) court. 

The decision appears to be reviewing not the final order of dismissal issued June 22. 2015. 

but an earlier, non-final order of dismissal of the complaint \Vithout prejudice issued September 19. 

2014. Memorandum at 4-5 (citing non-final order); 6 (reversing dismissal but vacating final order). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 an order contemplating further amendment is ordinarily unreviewable. See 

Cooper v. Ramos. 704 F.3d 772. 776-77 (9th Cir. 2008); WMXTechnologies. Inc. v. Miller, l 04 F.3d 

1133, 1135-37 (91

h Cir. 1997) (en bane). Non-final rulings are subject to amendment or 

reconsideration at any time before final judgment is entered. The final order of dismissal did that. 

relying on new briefing Park filed, which included new representations and concessions. The final 

order also made corrections and clarifications, and added both new and different analysis, and nev. 

grounds for dismissal. 

Among the changes was omission of a sentence from the earlier order's factual summary that 

the panel inquired about at oral argument. Compare Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss al 

l :24-26 and Order of Dismissal at 2:26-3 :3 (amended factual summary). 

Both the second and third amended complaints included claims arising from charges that had 

been refunded. and the EFT A claims arising from those were dismissed for failure to invoke the 

Court's jurisdiction. Order of Dismissal at 3:27-4:6. Claims by members of the putative class were 

also dismissed, in part, for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 9:1-8. The effect of reversing the dismissal of 

these claims, Memorandum at 6, will be that those claims cannot be dismissed a second time on the 

same grounds, even if jurisdiction is Jacking. To the extent Park's claims arise from refunded 

charges, this creates a conflict with the decision in Berry v. Webfoya/ty.com. Inc., 517 Fed. Appx. 

581 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that refunded charges did not amount to an injury in fact). 

Case 3:12-cv-01380-LAB-LL Document 71 Filed 09/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
Moll) Dwyer 

Clerk of Court - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

Page Two 

I bring this to your attention pursuant to General Order 12.10 because I have reason to believe 

that the affected parties may not point out the mistake and that justice will be disserved if the mistake 

is not corrected. 

Thank you for your attention lo this matter. 

Very truly yours. 

Larry 

tta'f{ 

Alan 

l 

Burns 

ali-t ~ 

United States District Judge 

cc: James Patterson. Counsel for Plaintiff 

Aaron Shawn Thompson, Counsel for Defendant 

Case 3:12-cv-01380-LAB-LL Document 71 Filed 09/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6