Source: https://clw.girardgibbs.com/tag/restitution/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:34:26+00:00

Document:
In an earlier post, we wrote about the Ninth Circuit’s Pulaski decision, which analyzed restitution under California law among other topics. A new and thorough opinion from U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller in Le v. Kohls Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv-1171 (E.D. Wi. Feb. 8, 2016), expands further on those principles.
The Le case arises from allegations that Kohls Department Stores engages in a continuous marketing campaign that falsely advertises that its products are sold at far higher priced by other merchants. Mr. Le sought restitution under California’s CLRA and UCL statutes and sought to enjoin the misleading advertising going forward.
the Court agrees with Le’s interpretation of California law, namely, that restitutionary relief under the UCL and CLRA is not strictly and categorically confined to the price-to-value method as proffered by Kohls.
As California courts continue to grapple with the Supreme Court’s 2013 Comcast v. Behrend decision and appropriate restitution calculations under California’s consumer protection statutes, a recent decision from Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Central District of California provides helpful analysis. Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, 309 F.R.D. 631 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
The Trump case arose from real estate seminar students’ claims that, in short, they didn’t get what they were promised. Plaintiffs brought suit under California’s CLRA and UCL, as well as under Florida’ FDUTPA and New York’s General Business Law sec. 349(h).
The primary issue was whether plaintiffs’ proposed classwide restitution and damages model complies with Comcast and applicable state law: Plaintiffs argued that they received no value (or at best de minimis value) in exchange for their money, and argued they were thus entitled to full refunds. Defendants, for their part, argued that state law doesn’t condone a “full refund” theory, and instead requires an amount-paid minus value-received calculation.
Since Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), was handed down, district courts in the Ninth Circuit have grappled with whether certification under Rule 23(b)(3) requires that damages be susceptible to classwide calculation, with some saying yes and others no. The Ninth Circuit handed down rulings in 2013 and 2014 saying that even post-Comcast it remains permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) for damages calculations to be individualized. See Leyva v. Medline Indus., 716 F.3d 510, 513-14 (9th Cir. 2013); Jimenez v. Allstate Ins., 765 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2014). Both of these decisions rely on the pre-Comcast Ninth Circuit ruling in in Yokoyama v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.2010).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.