N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B .P., on be ha lf of the m s e l ve s a nd a ll othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. R AM ESH B ALWA

NI, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt, and W ALGREENS B OOTS ALLIANC E, INC .; WALGREENS ARIZONA DR UG C OM PANY,

De fe nda n ts. No. 20-15974 D.C . Nos. 2:16-c v-02138-HR H 2:16-c v-2373-HR

H 2:16-c v-2660-HR

H 2:16-c v-2775-HR

H 2:16-c v-3599-HR

H M EM O R ANDUM *

B .P., on be ha lf of the m s e l ve s a nd a ll othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. W ALGREENS B OOTS ALLIANC E, INC .; WALGREENS ARIZONA DR UG No. 20-15976 D.C . Nos. 2:16-c v-02138-HR H 2:16-c v-2373-HR

H 2:16-c v-2660-HR

H 2:16-c v-2775-HR

H 2:16-c v-3599-HR

H 

# FIL ED SEP 8 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.C OM PANY, De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts, and R AM ESH B ALWA

NI, De fe nda n t. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na H . R usse l Holla

nd, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 9, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILER , ** C HR ISTEN, a nd FOR REST, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nts a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting c la s s c e rtific ation a s to pla i ntiffs’ c la im s pursua

nt to theAriz ona C onsum e r Fraud Ac t (C FA), C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om

pe tition La

w, C a lifornia ’ s Fa lse Adve rtising La w, ra c ke te e ring in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1962(c ), batte ry , a nd m e dic a l ba

tte ry . W e re vie wa

distric t c ourt’ s c l a s s-c e rtific ation orde r for a buse of disc re tion. Pulask i & Middle man, LLC v . Google

, Inc
. , 802 F.3d 979, 984 (9th C ir. 2015). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1292(e ) and Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 23(f), a nd we

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion. 2a ffirm

in pa rt, re v e rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we do not re c ite the m he re . 1. W a lgre e ns a

rgue s the distric t c ourt e rre d by finding tha

t the nam e d pla i ntiffs a de quate ly

re p re se nte d a

bse n t c la ss m e m

be rs’ c l a im s be c a

use the nam e d pla i ntiffs droppe d the ir e m otiona l distre ss, re te sting, a nd subse que nt m e dic a l tre atm e n t c la im s. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 23(a )(4). W a lgre e ns a rgue s the nam e d pla i ntiffs c re ate d a

c o nflic t of inte re st with a bse nt c la ss m e m

be rs by giving a way va lua ble the orie s of re c ove ry

tha t a bse nt c la ss m e m

be rs will bepre c lude d from ra ising in the

future . C onflic ts of inte re st de fe at le ga l a d e qua c y whe re the inte re sts of one subc la ss “ tug[] a ga inst” the inte re sts of a nothe r. Se e Amc h e m Prods . , Inc . v . W indsor , 521 U.S. 591, 626 (1997) . The distric t c o urt re a s one d tha t pla i ntiffs volunta rily dism isse d the e m otiona l distre ss a nd subse que nt m e dic a l tre atm e nt c la im s for all c la ss m e m

be rs, inc luding the m se lve s, be c a use the y c onc lude d

the se c la im s a re not suita

b l e for c la sswide re solution. The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t, be c a use of the dispa

rity be twe e n litiga

tion c osts a

nd the am ount of re c ove ra ble dam a ge for any

individual litiga

nt, a b se nt pla intiffs would like l y be una b le to re c o ve r a t a ll without c la ss c e rtific ation. The distric t c ourt did not err by c onc luding tha

t pla intiffs droppe d the i r e m otiona l distre s s a nd subse que nt m e dic a l 3tre atm e n t c la im s for the s trate gic be ne fit of the e ntire c la ss , a nd the re is no c onflic t of inte re st . W a lgre e ns a lso a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt “ im

prope rly pa sse d the re solution of this c o nflic t on to thea b se nt c la s s m e m

be rs by re ly ing sole ly

on the ir opt-out right”

and fa ile d to c onside r the va lue of a b se nt c l a ss m e m

be rs’ droppe d c la im s. Howe v e r, the distric t c ourt did not make its a de qua c y de te rm ination sole ly ba se d on a

bse nt c la ss m e m

be rs’ opt-out rights; it m

e re ly obse rve d tha

t a bse nt c la ss m e m b e rs who wish to pursue

the m m ay opt out, a nd c onside re d this a s a

fa c tor in a broa de r ana ly sis. The re fore , we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s a de qua c y de te rm ination. 2. De fe nda

nt B a lwa ni submits tha

t the distric t c ourt im

prope rly disre ga rde d his de fe nse whe n it m a de its pre dom ina nc e de te rm ination. B a lwa ni se e k s to a rgue tha t c e rta in pla intiffs re c e ive d a c c urate te st re sults a n d e xpe rie nc e d im prove d he a lth outc om e s, a n d the y the re fore did not suffe r injury (i.e . the y got what the y pa id for). This c ourt ha s som e tim e s c onc lude d tha t a c la ss doe s not m e e t the pre d om ina

nc e re quire m e nt in c a se s whe re lia b ility c ould be e sta

blishe d only

with individualiz e d

e vide n c e . Se e

, e .g., Mazza v
. Am. Honda Motor C o. , 666 F.3d 581, 596 (9th C i r. 2012); B e rge r v . Home De pot USA, Inc
. , 741 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th C ir. 2014), abrogate d on othe r grounds by Mic rosoft C

orp. v . Bak

e r , 137 S. C t. 1702, 1712 (2017). He

re , the distric t c o urt de te rm ine d tha t a single c om

m on issue 4is c e ntra l to pla intiffs’ c a se : whe the r The ranos a nd W a lgre e ns’ blood te sting se rvic e s we re c a

pa ble of produc ing re lia

ble re sults. Thedistric t c ourt c o nc lude d that this issue pre dom inate s ove r individual que stions of te st re s ult a c c ura c y . B a lwa ni’ s de fe nse doe s not a ddre ss this c e ntra l issue of lia bility be c a use whe the r individual te sts we re in fa c t a c c urate is not re le va nt to re p re se ntations tha

t we re m a de c onc e rning the re lia b ility of the te sting . B e c a

use “ m ore im

porta nt que stions a pt to drivethe re solution of the litiga tion a re give n m o re we ight in the pre d om ina

nc e an a ly sis ove r individualiz e d que stions whic h a re of c onside ra

bly le ss signific anc e ,” Ruiz Torre s v . Me rc e r C

any ons Inc
. , 835 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th C ir. 2016), we c onc lude tha t the distric t

c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion by finding pre dom ina

nc e . 3. W a lgre e ns a

rgue s the distric t c ourt e rre d by c e rtify ing the batte ry

and m e dic a l batte ry

c la im s be c a

use W a lgre e ns e m

ploy e e s did not touch a ll pla intiffs, and de te rm ining who c onduc t e d a ny give n pla intiff’ s te st is a

n individualiz e d inquiry tha t de fe ats pre dom ina

nc e . Pla intiffs subm

it tha t W a lgre e ns a

nd The ranos subje c te d the m

to offe nsive touc hing without c onse nt on a c la sswide ba sis, a

nd tha t this c la im c an be e sta

blishe d through c om

m on proof.

“ An a c tor is subje c t

to lia bility to a nothe r for batte ry if the a c tor inte ntiona lly

e nga ge s in a

n a c t tha t re sults in ha

rm ful or offe nsive c onta c t with the 5pe rson of a

nothe r.” Dunc an v . Sc ottsdale Me d . Imaging, Ltd. , 70 P.3d 435, 439 (Ariz . 2003) (e n ba

n c ) (c iting R e sta

te m e nt (Se c ond) of Torts §§ 13, 18 (1965)) . To m ake a c la sswide batte ry

or m e dic a l batte ry

c la im , pla intiffs m

ust be a b le to show that W a lgre e ns is lia

ble for a l l blood dra

ws, inc luding those c onduc te d by The ran os e m

ploy e e s. S

e e id. Pla intiffs’ c onte ntion tha t the y ne e d only

prove tha t W a lgre e ns inte ntiona lly

e nga g e d in som e a c t tha

t re sulte d in blood dra

ws— not ne c e ssa rily the touc hing itse lf— is unsupporte d by Ariz ona la w. The distric t c ourt dism isse d pla intiffs’ a ge nc y and joint venture the orie s be c a u se W a lgre e ns a

nd The ran os we re not in a

n a ge nc y re lationship. W

hile pla intiffs a

rgue the y c an show that W a lgre e ns m a

y be lia ble for m e d ic a l ba

tte ry ba se d on a

n a iding a nd a be tting the o ry , pla intiffs c annot m ake a de riva tive a iding a

n d a be tting ba tte ry c la im without a c e rtifia b le batte ry

c la im . Se e Pate l v . Ve rdeValle y Me d. C tr. , Nos. C V05-1129/2926-PC T-M HM , 2009 W L 3270883, a t *4 (D. Ariz . Oc t. 8, 2009). Pla i ntiffs m a inta in tha

t the y posse ss a spre a dshe e t c onta i ning c om m on e v ide nc e re ga rding who dre w e a c h subc la ss m e m be r’ s blood. W e re ve rse c la ss c e rtific ation a s to thebatte ry an d m e dic a l ba tte ry c la im s and re m a

nd to thedistric t

c ourt to lim

it this c la ss to pla intiffs who ha d blood dra

w n by W a lgre e ns e m

ploy e e s , suc h tha

t no c la im s im pute lia bility for batte ry

or m e dic a l ba

tte ry on one de fe nda

nt for a touc hing c onduc te d by an othe r de fe nda nt’ s e m ploy e e . 64. B a lwa ni a rgue s the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion be c a

u se the Ariz ona C onse nt De c re e de fe ate d the Fe d. R . C iv. P. 23(b)(3) supe riority re quire m e nt. W e c onc lude , howe ve r, tha t the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whilec onduc ting a supe riority ana ly sis pursua

nt to Zinse r v . Ac c ufix Re se arc h Institute

, Inc
. , 253 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th C ir. 2001). In a s se ssing the se c o nd Zinse r fa c tor, the distric t c ourt re a sone d tha t the Ariz ona

C o nse nt De c re e

“ did not c om

pre he nd the full sc ope of da m a g e s tha t m i ght be av a ila

ble , ” a n d tha t it did not inc lude a

batte ry or m e dic a l ba

tte ry c la im . Pla intiffs’ C a lifornia sta t utory c la im s a re a lso una ffe c te d by the Ariz ona C onse nt De c re e . C ontra ry to de fe nda

nts’ argum e nt, K

a mm v . C alifornia C

ity De v e lopme nt C

ompany doe s not hold tha

t a prior public se ttle m e nt ne c e ssa rily de fe ats supe riority

for future c la ss a c tions. 509 F.2d 205, 211 (9th C ir. 1975). On the fa c ts of this c a se , the distric t c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion. Se pa

ra te ly , B a lwa

ni forfe ite d the argum e nt tha t his c rim ina l prose c ution is a

supe rior m e thod to a djudic ate the c la ss c la im s. 5. Fina lly , W a lgre e ns a rgue s the distric t c ourt e rre d in c e rtify ing pla i ntiffs’ R IC O and Ariz ona C FA c la im s for punitive

dam a ge s unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 23(b)(3) be c a

u s e the Ariz ona

pla intiffs ha

ve a lre a dy

be e n c o m

pe nsate d for the ir a c tua l da m a ge s by the Ariz ona

C onse nt De c re e , a

nd the y are the re fore ine ligible

7for c o m

pe nsatory dam a g e s, a

n d thus punitive

dam a ge s, in this ac t ion. Unde r Ariz ona

la w, a pla intiff m

ust be e ntitle d to a c tua l dam a g e s be fore be ing e ligiblefor punitivedam a ge s . W y att v . W e hmue lle r , 806 P.2d 870, 874 (Ariz . 1991) (e n ba

n c ). Pla intiffs in this c a se m ay have suffe re d a c om pe nsa ble injury tha t e ntitle d the m

to da m a ge s a c c ording to the

Ariz ona C onse nt De c re e , e ve n though those

c om pe nsat ory dam a ge s hav e a lre a dy

be e n pa id. W e thus c onc lude the C onse nt De c re e doe s not ba r pla i ntiffs’ R IC O tre ble dam a ge s re c o ve ry so long a s pla intiffs e sta

blish de fe nda

nts’ lia bility for a c tua l da

m a ge s a nd a dditiona l da

m a ge s a re “ offse t” by

the am ount a lre a dy

pa id. Se e UtheTe c h. C

orp. v . Ae trium, Inc
. , 808 F.3d 755, 760 (9th C ir. 2015). Simila rly , pla intiffs m a

y a lso re c o ve r unde r the Ariz ona C FA be c a

use the “ offse t rule ” pre ve nts a ny double re c o ve ry of those sta

tutory dam a ge s. Se e C

ity of San J o se v . Pric e W

ate rhouse , No. 91-16489, 1993 W

L 83495 (9th C ir. M a

rc h 23, 1993). The

distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D. E ac h par ty to be ar its ow n c o sts.

8