Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00715/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00715-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frederick's of Hollywood Stores, Inc
Defendant
Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc
Defendant
Zachary Hile
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 As discussed below, the case now pending before the Ninth

Circuit is Soualian v. Int'l Coffee and Tea LLC, CV 07-0502, 2007

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44208, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2007), appeal

docketed, No. 07-80100 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2007).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZACHARY HILE, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD STORES,

INC., FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD,

INC.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-0715 SC

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR CLASS

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL

RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 23

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Zachary Hile ("Plaintiff") filed a Motion for Class

Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23

("Motion"). Docket No. 13. Frederick's of Hollywood Stores,

Inc., and Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc. ("Defendants"), opposed

the motion and Plaintiff filed a Reply. See Docket Nos. 20, 27. 

For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED without

prejudice. Plaintiff may refile a Motion for Class Certification

after an opinion is issued in another case now pending before the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that raises the same issues raised

by the parties in the present action.1

///

Case 3:07-cv-00715-SC Document 29 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 FACTA is a subset of the statutes contained within the Fair

Credit Reporting Act ("FRCA"), codified at 15 U.S.C. sections 1681,

et. seq.

3 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1) states that "no person that accepts

credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall

print more than the last five digits of the card number or the

expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the

point of the sale or transaction."

2

II. BACKGROUND

On February 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed a class action against

Defendants under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

("FACTA"), 15 U.S.C. section 1681c(g).2

 See Compl., Docket No. 1. 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on January 24, 2007,

Plaintiff made a credit card purchase at one of Defendants' stores

and was provided a receipt that contained the expiration date of

Plaintiff's credit card.3 Mot. at 5.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23"),

Plaintiff now seeks to certify the class of individuals "to whom

Defendant, after December 4, 2006, provided an electronically

printed receipt at the point of a sale or transaction on which

Defendant printed expiration dates in violation of 15 U.S.C. §

1681c(g)." Mot. at 5. 

III. DISCUSSION

Three District Courts in California have recently denied

motions for class certification in cases with factual allegations

practically indistinguishable from the case at bar. See Spikings

v. Cost Plus, Inc., CV 06-8125, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44214, at *1

(C.D. Cal. May 25, 2007); Soualian, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44208,

Case 3:07-cv-00715-SC Document 29 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 Rule 23(b)(3) requires that common questions of law or fact

predominate over individual questions and that "a class action is

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

3

at *1; Najarian v. Charlotte Russe, CV 07-0501, 2007 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 59879, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2007). In all three cases,

the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had violated FACTA by

including credit card numbers, expiration dates, or both on

printed receipts. See Spikings, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44214, at

*1; Soualian, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44208, at *1; Najarian, 2007

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59879, at *1. In all three cases, class

certification was denied because the courts found that the

plaintiffs could not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(b)(3).4 See Spikings, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44214, at *17;

Soualian, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44208, at *13; Najarian, 2007 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 59879, at *6.

In Soualian, the district court's denial of class

certification was appealed and is now pending before the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. See Soualian, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

44208, appeal docketed, No. 07-80100 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2007). 

In the interests judicial efficiency and conservation of

resources, this Court DENIES, without prejudice, Plaintiff's

Motion for Class Certification. Once the Ninth Circuit issues an

opinion in the pending case of Soualian, Plaintiff may refile a

Motion for Class Certification.

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00715-SC Document 29 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Class

Certification is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile

the Motion after the Ninth Circuit issues an opinion in Soualian,

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44208, appeal docketed, No. 07-80100 (9th

Cir. Sept. 13, 2007).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2007 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00715-SC Document 29 Filed 10/17/07 Page 4 of 4