The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS -- COURT ORDER
Before the Court are a Motion to Certify Class filed by plaintiffs Charles Doell and Jeffrey Kaplan ("Named Plaintiffs") (Docket No. 24) and a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by defendants Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. and Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. ("Defendants") (Docket No. 27). Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that these matters are appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for November 7, 2011, is vacated, and the matters taken off calendar.
In their Opposition to the Motion to Certify Class, Defendants contend that the claims of Named Plaintiffs and many of the putative class members are barred by the California Fine Print Act's ("FPA") statute of limitations. That statute of limitations requires FPA claims to be brought within one year. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1745(c) ("No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability under this section unless brought within one year after discovery of the violation upon which it is based and in no event more than three years after the multiple was sold.").
Named Plaintiffs filed this action on June 9, 2011. The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges that Charles Doell purchased his print from Defendants on November 25, 2007 and that Jeffrey Kaplan purchased his prints on October 27 and 29, 2007. The Complaint additionally alleges that a prior putative class action was filed by Clint Arthur on behalf of the same class on June 23, 2008, and remained pending until it was dismissed on December 1, 2010 without the class having been certified. The FAC alleges that as a result of the pendency of the Arthur action, "there has been an equitable tolling of the applicable statute of limitations during that period."
According to Defendants' Opposition to the Motion to Certify Class, even if the statute of limitations was equitably tolled while the Arthur action remained pending, Named Plaintiffs' individual claims are barred by the statute of limitations because the period between their purchases and the filing of the Arthur action, added to the time from the dismissal of the Arthur action to the filing of this action, exceeds one year. This argument was not, however, among the arguments asserted in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA