NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT GISELE R OGER S, individual, on ) No. 11-57016 be ha lf of the m se lve s a

nd a ll othe rs ) sim ila rly situa te d , ) D.C . No. 2:09-c v-08063-PSG-C W

) Pla intiff - Appe lla

nt, ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) v. ) ) EPSON AM ER IC A, INC ., ) a C a lifornia

c orporation; EPSON ) AC C ESSOR IES, INC ., ) a C a lifornia

c orporation; SEIKO ) EPSON C ORPOR

ATION, ) a Ja p ane se c orporation; DOES 1-100 ) inc l usive , ) ) De fe nda nts - Appe lle e s. ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 5, 2016 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED APR 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : FER N ANDEZ a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SETTLE, *** Distric t Judge . Gise le R oge rs a

p p e a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing c e rtific ation of a c la ss of purc ha se rs of printe rs m a de by Epson Am e ric a , Inc ., Epson Ac c e ssorie s, Inc . , a nd Se iko Epson C orporation (c olle c tive ly “ Epson” ). W e a ffirm . R oge rs a sse rte d

tha t the printe rs in que stion ha d se pa ra te c artridge s for e a c h c olor a nd tha t Epson misle d purc ha se rs by re p re se nting tha

t a use r ne e de d only

to re pla c e the c olor tha

t wa s e m pty whe n it ra

n out. In fa c t, if a

ny c artridge wa s e m pty the use r c ould not print bla c k a nd whitec opie s . She sought c e rtific ation of a c la ss of: “ All pe rsons throughout the Unite d State s who, be twe e n August 28, 2005 and c la ss c e rtific ation, purc h a se d, not for re sa le , a n Epson Sty lus NX se rie s printe r.” She a sse rte d

tha t Epson ha d

m a de the m isre pre se n tations to herse lf a nd to the o the r m e m

be rs of the c la ss in viola

tion of C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w (“ UC L” ), 1 and C a l ifornia ’ s Fa lse Adve rtising La w(“ FAL” ). 2 The distric t c ourt de te rm i ne d tha

t R oge rs ha d m e t the ge ne ra l pre re quisite s for c l a ss c e rtific ation, 3

*** The Honora

ble B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion. 1 Se e C a l . B u s . & Prof. C ode §§ 17200, 17203. 2 Se e C a l . B u s . & Prof. C ode § 17500. 3 Se e Fe d . R . C iv. P. 23(a ). 2but tha

t she ha d fa ile d to m e e t the m ore spe c ific re quire m e nt tha t the c l a ss wa s one in whic h “ que stions of la

w or fa c t c om

m on to c la ss m e m

b e rs pre dom inate ove r any que stions a ffe c ting only

individual m e m

b e rs . . . .” 4 In orde r to pre dom inate , the que stions ha d to a

t le a s t be c om

m on 5 and the re ha d

to be c ohe sion a

m o ng the m e m b e rs of the c la ss. 6 R oge rs a sse rts tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion 7 whe n it, in e ffe c t, de te rm ine d tha t she ha d not m e t those re quire m e nts. W e disa gre e . In a c a s e of this na

ture , one ba se d upon produc t la b e ling, a dve rtising, a

nd the l ike , it is c ritic a l tha

t the m isre pre se ntation in que stion bem a de to a ll of the c la ss m e m

be rs. Se e , e .g. , Mazza , 666 F.3d a

t 595–96; Ste arns , 655 F.3d a t 1020; Dav is-Mille r v . Auto. C

lub of S. C

al. , 201 C a l. App. 4th 106, 121, 124–25, 134 Ca l. R ptr. 3d 551, 562, 564–65 (2011) (UCL c la im ); Pfize r, Inc . v . Supe r . C t. , 182 C a l.

4Id. 23(b)(3). 5 Se e id ; se e also W

al-Mart Store

s, Inc . v . Duk

e s , 564 U.S. 338, __, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2556, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011).

6 Se e Amc he m Prods., Inc . v . W indsor , 521 U.S. 591, 623, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2249, 138 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1997); Mazza v . Am. Honda Motor C o., Inc . , 666 F.3d 581, 595–96 (9th C ir. 2012); Ste arns v . Tic k e tmaste r C

orp. , 655 F.3d 1013, 1020 (9th C ir. 2011).

7 Se e Be rge r v . HomeDe

pot USA, Inc . , 741 F.3d 1061, 1066–67 (9th C ir. 2014); W olin v . J aguar Land Rove r N

. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1171–72 (9th C ir. 2010); se e also Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–62 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba

nc ) 3App. 4th 622, 629–30 & n.4, 631–32, 105 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 795, 801 &

n.4, 802–04 (2010) (UC L a

n d FAL c la im s ). The distric t c ourt did not err whe n it de t e rm ine d that the e vide nc e in the re c ord did not me e t tha t sta nda rd; thee vide nc e did not support a de te rm ination tha

t a ll c la ss m e m

b e rs sa w or othe rwise re c e ive d the m isre pre se ntations re ga

rding c o lor-c artridge re pla c e m e nt. Of c ourse , m inor de viations in the

wording of misre pre se ntations might not be fa ta l to c la s s c e rtific ation, 8 but tha

t princ iple doe s not a ffe c t the situa tion of those

who purc ha se d printe rs be fore the y e nc ounte re d a

ny m isre pre se ntations wha

tsoe ve r. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de n ie d c la ss c e rtific ation. W e re c ogniz e that the distric t c ourt sa w R oge rs’ fa ilure of proof a s a sta nding proble m

and tha t we have he ld tha

t sta nding is not affe c te d by

the c a usation proble m s it ide ntifie d . Se e Mazza , 666 F.3d a t 594–95; Ste arns , 655 F.3d at 1020–21. Neve rthe le s s, we c an a ffirm the distric t c ourt de spite its useof the w rong la

be l whe re , a s he re , the de c i sion wa s none the l e ss c orre c t. S e e Fle isc he r Studios, Inc . v . A.V.E.L.A., Inc . , 654 F.3d 958, 964 n.3 (9th C ir. 2011); s e e also Be rge r , 741 F.3d a

t 1066–67. R oge rs a sse rts tha

t the distric t

c ourt a buse d its disc re tion whe n it did not sua

8 Se e He n ry

v . Le hman C

omme rc ial Pape r, Inc . (In re First All. Mortg. C o.) , 471 F.3d 977, 990–91 (9th C i r. 2006); c f. K napp v . AT & T W

ire le ss Se rv s., Inc . , 195 C a l. App. 4th 932, 944, 124 C a l. R ptr. 3d 565, 574 (2011). 4sponte re de fine the propose d c l a ss a n d c e rtify tha t. Howe ve r, she ove rlooks the princ iple tha

t the burde n of proposing a na rrowe r c la ss wa s he rs, a

nd not tha t of the distric t c o urt. Se e Lozano v . AT & T W ire le ss Se rv s., Inc . , 504 F.3d 718, 729–30 (9th C ir. 2007); se e also Vinole v . C ountryw ideHomeLoans, Inc . , 571 F.3d 935, 947 (9th C i r. 2009). Fina lly , Epson re que sts tha t we go on to de c ide whe the r a nationwidec la ss would be prope r, 9 whe t

he r R o g e rs’ c la im s of injury we re ty p ic a l, 1 0 an d whe the r she is a n a de quat e c l a ss re pre se ntative . 1 1 Howe ve r, be c a use we have de t e rm ine d tha t c e rtific ation of thec la ss wa s prope rly de nie d, we de c line the invita t ion to issue

our a dvic e on thosesubje c ts. W e e xpre ss no opinion on the prope r outc om e of those inquirie s. AFFIRM ED.

9 Se e Mazza , 666 F.3d a

t 589–94; Rutle d

gev . He w le t t-Pac k

ard C o. , 238 C a l. App. 4th 1164, 1187–88, 190 C a l. R ptr. 3d 411, 430–31 (2015). 1 0 Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 23(a )(3); se e also Hanon v . Dataproduc t s C orp. , 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th C ir. 1992).

1 1 Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 23(a )(4); se e also Ellis v . C ostc o W hole sale C orp. , 657 F.3d 970, 985–86 (9th C ir. 2011). 5