Berger v. Home Depot, No. 11-55592 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a putative class action suit against Home Depot alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200; the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1770; and common-law theories of unjust enrichment and money had and received. Plaintiff alleged that Home Depot automatically imposed a ten percent surcharge for a damage waiver on tool rentals in California stores, and although that fee was to be optional, Home Depot failed to inform customers of their ability to decline the surcharge. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the appeal despite plaintiff's stipulation on dismissal after the negative class action ruling. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification because the record did not show that the requirements of Rule 12(b)(3) were satisfied where common questions did not predominate over individual issues in any of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of class certification.
Court Description: Jurisdiction / Class Certification. The panel affirmed the district court’s stipulated dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s putative class-action claims against Home Depot, following the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The panel held that there was appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because, in the absence of a settlement, a stipulation that leads to a dismissal with prejudice does not destroy the adversity in that judgment necessary to support an appeal. The panel affirmed the denial of class certification because the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the proposed classes that plaintiff was capable of representing did not meet the requirement that common questions predominated over individual issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and that was the only sub-part of Rule 23(b) on which plaintiff relied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.