Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cv-00197/USCOURTS-akd-3_18-cv-00197-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LLR, Inc.
Defendant
LuLaRoe
Defendant
LuLaRoe, LLC
Defendant
Katie Van
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

KATIE VAN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe; and 

LULAROE, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-JMK

ORDER RE JOINT STATUS 

REPORT AND FUTURE 

SCHEDULING

At Docket 159, this Court issued an Order partially staying the proceedings 

in this case until thirty days following receipt of the mandate of the Ninth Circuit in 

connection with Defendants’ then-pending appeal. The Court also ordered the Parties to 

submit a Joint Status Report concerning new scheduling matters flowing from the Ninth 

Circuit’s decision within fourteen days of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate.

1

 The Ninth Circuit 

issued its mandate on April 4, 2022,

2 and the Parties timely submitted a Joint Status Report 

on April 18, 2023.

3

 The Court held a status conference on May 1, 2023, at which time the 

1

 Docket 159 at 5. 2

 Docket 164. 3

 Docket 168.

Case 3:18-cv-00197-SLG Document 174 Filed 05/10/23 Page 1 of 5
Van v. LLR, Inc. et al Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-JMK

Order Re: Joint Status Report and Future Scheduling Page 2

Court invited the Parties to submit additional scheduling status reports.4 The Parties filed 

their additional status reports at Dockets 172 and 173, respectively.

The parties disagree as to how this case should proceed. Defendants take 

issue with Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification, filed at Docket 167, arguing 

that allowing Plaintiffs to redefine the class at this stage subverts the Ninth Circuit’s 

direction on remand and prejudices Defendants, who have “litigated based on the same 

class definition over the past six years.”5

 In the initial joint status report, Defendants 

contend that they should be given an opportunity to conduct limited precertification class 

discovery for a period of forty-five days before a new motion for class certification is filed.6

 

At the status conference and in their second status report, Defendants extended this request 

to ninety days.7

 Such discovery would allow Defendants to investigate price variations in 

the putative class members’ transactions to determine if LuLaRoe offset sales tax in ways 

that were not listed as a discount on an invoice.8 Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s

Amended Motion for Class Certification improperly incorporates by reference portions of 

her prior Motion for Class Certification, creating confusion and “depriv[ing] the Court and 

any appellate court of a clear record.”9

 

Plaintiff disputes the need for additional precertification discovery, given 

that the proposed revised class definition is narrower than the original and was previewed

4

 Docket 170 (text entry). 

5

 Docket 172 at 3. 6

 Docket 168 at 10. 7

 Docket 172 at 3. 8

 Docket 168 at 10. 9 Docket 172 at 5. 

Case 3:18-cv-00197-SLG Document 174 Filed 05/10/23 Page 2 of 5
Van v. LLR, Inc. et al Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-JMK

Order Re: Joint Status Report and Future Scheduling Page 3

at earlier points in this litigation, including at oral argument before the Ninth Circuit.10 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have had ample time to engage in precertification 

discovery prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and the proposed narrowed class definition 

does not warrant additional factfinding.

11 If the Court grants Defendants’ request for 

additional precertification discovery, Plaintiff contends that Defendants should be limited 

to their original request of forty-five days and Defendants should be ordered to disclose the 

identity of any third party on which it may rely for its opposition and produce all putative 

class members’ transaction invoices and spreadsheets related to the invoices.12

“[I]t is not uncommon for district courts to permit renewed class certification 

motions that set out a narrower class definition or that rely upon different evidence or legal 

theories.”13 “An appellate ruling rejecting class certification does not change this ability 

to consider a renewed certification motion.”14 Although Plaintiffs’ proposed narrowed 

class definition is inarguably outside the scope of the Ninth Circuit’s remand, the Court is 

well within its discretion to entertain it at this stage. “According to the rule of mandate, 

although lower courts are obliged to execute the terms of a mandate, they are free as to 

‘anything not foreclosed by the mandate,’” and “[a]n order issued after remand may deviate 

10 Docket 173 at 2. 11 Id. at 2–3. 12 Id. at 4. 13 Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. C 01-02252 CRB, 2012 WL 4329009, at *4 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 21, 2012); see also Moore v. Apple Inc., Case No. 14-CV-02269-LHK, 2015 WL 

7351464, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015) (considering a proposed narrower class definition on a 

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration). 

14 Dukes, 2012 WL 4329009, at *4 (citing In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 483 F.3d 

70, 73 (2d Cir. 2007)). 

Case 3:18-cv-00197-SLG Document 174 Filed 05/10/23 Page 3 of 5
Van v. LLR, Inc. et al Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-JMK

Order Re: Joint Status Report and Future Scheduling Page 4

from the mandate . . . if it is not counter to the spirit of the circuit court’s decision . . . .”15 

The Court sees little sense in insisting that the Parties proceed through the remand in 

contemplation of a class that Plaintiff no longer seeks to certify when Plaintiff’s proposed 

narrower class definition is the natural and foreseeable outcome of the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision. Further, Defendants’ arguments that they are prejudiced by the new class 

definition is undercut by the fact that Plaintiff contemplated this narrower class during the 

appeal. Lastly, Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff’s incorporation by reference is 

confusing and muddies the record is unpersuasive. Defendants have ample opportunity to 

present any arguments against certification of the proposed narrowed class in their 

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, the Court 

ORDERS as follows:

1. Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decision at Docket 163, the Order 

Granting Class Certification at Docket 127 is VACATED. 

2. Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Class Certification at Docket 167 is 

accepted as filed and, for the purposes of the briefing schedule contained herein, will be 

treated as if it were filed on the same day as this Order. 

3. Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class 

Certification is due sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. This allows Defendants the 

15 United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations 

omitted); see also Williams v. Warner Music Grp. Corp., No. 2:18-cv-09691-JWH-PJWx, 2021 

WL 7448496, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021) (holding that permitting Plaintiffs to file another 

motion for class certification arguably does not run afoul of the mandate rule but applying the 

motion for reconsideration standard where the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of 

class certification).

Case 3:18-cv-00197-SLG Document 174 Filed 05/10/23 Page 4 of 5
Van v. LLR, Inc. et al Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-JMK

Order Re: Joint Status Report and Future Scheduling Page 5

requested forty-five days of additional precertification discovery plus an additional fifteen 

days to finish discovery and draft their Opposition.

4. Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Amended Motion for Class 

Certification is due fourteen (14) days from the date that Defendants’ Opposition is filed. 

5. Defendants are granted an additional ten (10) pages beyond the limits 

set out in Local Civil Rule 7.4(a)(2) for their Opposition and Plaintiff is granted the same 

for her Reply. 

6. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order, Defendants

shall produce to Plaintiff (a) any putative class members’ transaction invoices and 

spreadsheets generated by Defendants’ system that Defendants intend to rely on for their 

Opposition; and (b) the identities of any third parties on whom Defendants intend to rely 

in their Opposition.

7. All other deadlines in this proceeding remain STAYED. The Court 

will issue an Order directing the Parties to meet and confer regarding new pretrial deadlines 

after it rules on Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.

 /s/ Joshua M. Kindred 

JOSHUA M. KINDRED

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00197-SLG Document 174 Filed 05/10/23 Page 5 of 5