N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FOX TEST PRE P; STEVEN PRIC E, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. FAC EB OOK, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-16601 DC No. 4:09 C V-3043 PJH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 9, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM Aand PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s, a nd QUIST, Se nior Distric t Judge
. ** Pla intiffs Fox Te st Pre p a nd Ste phe n Pric e a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of c la ss c e rtific ation. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1292(e ) and Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 23(f), a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED
D EC 26 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Gordon J. Quist, Senior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of c la ss c e rtific ation for a buse of disc re tion. Se eYok

oy a ma v . Midland N

at’l Life Ins. C o . , 594 F. 3d 1087, 1090 (9th C ir. 2010). “ An a

buse of disc re tion oc c urs whe n the distric t c ourt, ‘ in m aking
a disc re tiona

ry ruling, re lie s upon a

n im prope r fa c tor, om its c o nside ra tion of a fa c t or e ntitle d to substa

ntia l we ight, or m

u lls the c orre c t m ix of fa c tors but m ake s a
c le ar e rror of judgm e nt in a s sa y ing the m .’ ” Parra v . Bashas’, Inc

. , 536 F.3d 975, 977-78 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting W aste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc . v . Mow bray , 2 08 F.3d 228, 295 (1st C i r. 2000)). The distric t c ourt he ld tha t the propose d c la ss c ould not be c e rtifie d unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 23(b)(3) be c a use , am ong othe r re a sons, Pla intiffs fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t the re is a

c l a ss-wide uniform

m e thod for de te rm ining wha t
c onstitute s a

“ va lid c l ic k.” In reFac e book , Inc ., PPC

Adv e r. Litig. , 282 F.R .D. 446, 458-59 (N.D. C a l. 2012). W e c onc l ude tha t the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t c la ss c e rtific ation wa s ina ppropria te unde r R

ule 23(b)(3). Se eC

omc ast C orp. v . Be hre nd , 133 S.C t . 1426, 1432 (2013). Pla intiffs’ c e n t

ra l the o ry of lia bility is tha t Fa c e book im

p rope rly c ha rge d the m for “ inva lid” c lic ks. As a re sult, it wa s c ruc ia l for the m to e sta blish a worka ble , c la sswide m e t

hod to distinguish a

m ong “ va lid,” “ i nva lid,” and

“ fraudule nt” c l ic ks. Pla intiffs’ e xpe rt sta te d tha t he c ould de v e lop a

n d im ple m e nt 2rule -ba se d a lgorithm s to de te rm ine whe the r Fa c e book fa ile d to e m ploy a lgorithm s in c o nform ity

with pre v a iling industry

sta nda rds in de te rm ining whe the r a c lic k is le gitim ate . He furthe r note d tha t the IAB (Inte ra c t ive Adve rtising B ure a u) C lic k M e a sure m e nt Guide l ine s m a k e c le ar that it is ge n e ra lly unde rstood in the industry that a c lic k is de fine d a s a

re que st by

a hum an with a

n inte nt to vie wthe c onte nt. Nowhe re in his report or de p osition, howeve r, did he provide the ac tual me thod for distinguishing be

twe e n va l i d a

nd inva l id c l ic ks. Furthe r, in his dep osition he
a c knowle dge d tha

t he knows of no sourc e s , inc luding theIAB guide line s, tha t provide spe c ificpa

ram e te rs for de te rm ining wha t c onstitute s a va lid c lic k. B e c a use Pla intiffs fa i le d to m e e t the ir burde n of de m onstra t ing a worka ble
c la ss-wide m e t

hodology to de te rm ine what c onstitute s a “ va l id c lic k,” the distric t
c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing c la ss c e rtific ation be c a use “ c om m on issue s do not pre dom inat e ,” In reFac e book , 282 F.R .D. at 459, a s re quire d by R ule 23(b)(3). 1 Ac c ordingly , the orde r of the distric t c ourt de ny ing c la s s c e rtific ation is AFFIRM E D
.

1 B e c a

use we de c ide this a

p pe a l on the la c k of pre dom ina n c e issue , we do not re a c h the othe r ba se s of the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision de ny ing c l a ss c e rtific ation. 3