REID YEOMAN and RITA MEDELLIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs,
IKEA U.S. WEST, INC.; DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matter before the Court is the Amended Motion to Compel Notice to the Certified Class filed by Plaintiffs Reid Yeoman and Rita Medellin. (ECF No. 95).
On November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"). (ECF No. 25). Plaintiffs allege that they purchased items from an Ikea store using a credit card, and that, "[d]uring the credit card transaction, the cashier asked plaintiff[s] for [plaintiffs'] ZIP code.... [B]elieving [plaintiffs were] required to provide the requested information to complete the transaction, [plaintiffs] provided it." Id. at 3. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has a uniform policy of requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers during credit card transactions, in violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971. Id. at 2.
On January 13, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification (ECF No. 30), which the Court granted on May 4, 2012. (ECF No. 43). The Court certified the following class:
[A]ll persons from whom Ikea requested and recorded a ZIP Code in conjunction with a credit card transaction in California from February 16, 2010 through the date of trial in this action (the Class').
Excluded from the Class are (i) transactions wherein personal information was required for a special purpose incidental but related to the individual credit card transaction, including, but not limited to, information relating to shipping, delivery, servicing, or installation of the purchased merchandise, or for special orders; and (ii) transactions wherein a credit card issued to a business was used. Also excluded from the Class are the officers and directors of Defendant and of its corporate parents, subsidiaries and affiliates, or any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons or entities, and the Court to which the matter is assigned.
Id. at 15.
On September 7, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Decertify the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) ("Motion to Decertify"). (ECF No. 51). On November 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Notice to the Certified Class ("Motion to Compel Notice"). (ECF No. 74). On February 27, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to decertify the class (ECF No. 93), and modified the class definition to:
[A]ll persons from whom Ikea requested and recorded a ZIP Code in conjunction with a credit card transaction in California from February 16, 2010 through February 28, 2011 (the Class'). Excluded from the Class are (i) transactions wherein personal information was required for a special purpose incidental but related to the individual credit card transaction, including, but not limited to, information relating to shipping, delivery, servicing, or installation of the purchased merchandise, or for special orders; (ii) transactions wherein a credit card issued to a business was used; and (iii) transactions executed at self-checkout kiosks.
Id. at 28-29. The February 27, 2013 Order also denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Notice without prejudice and with leave to amend "in light of the Court's decision to both modify the class period and exclude transactions conducted at self-checkout kiosks from the class definition...." Id. at 28.
On March 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion to Compel Notice to the Certified Class ("Amended Motion to Compel Notice"). (ECF No. 95). Along with the Amended Motion to Compel Notice, Plaintiffs included three proposed notices that were "modified to conform to the revised Class definition, and the parties have agreed to the substance of the proposed notices." Id. at 2; Declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger ("Stonebarger Decl.") Exh. A "Long Form Notice, " ECF No. 95-2; Exh. B "In-Store Notice, " ECF No. 95-3; and Exh. C "Short Form Notice, " ECF No. 95-4. Plaintiffs indicate that the parties have agreed upon the following notice procedures: (1) publication notice on a website containing a copy of the Long Form Notice, case information, and contact information for Class Counsel; and (2) posting the In Store Notice at the customer service desk located in each of Ikea's California retail stores. (ECF No. 95 at 3). Plaintiffs contend that the parties, "have met and conferred... regarding a proposed notice plan but dispute whether notice should be disseminated to potential class members by email and whether notice should be posted at the point-of-sale locations in Ikea's California stores. The parties also dispute who bears the cost of notice." (ECF No. 95 at 2).
On April 15, 2013, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Compel Notice. (ECF No. 96). Defendant contends that "[P]laintiff[s'] plan for e-mail to all of Ikea's customers and posting at every point of sale throughout its stores should be rejected in favor of the other two methods proposed: (1) website notice, and (2) a single posting in each store where Ikea's other notices to customers are placed." Id. at 6. Plaintiffs request that, "if direct notice is ordered, then the notice should be accompanied by a questionnaire to putative class members that will allow the Court and the parties to define the claims to be tried and validate the process the ...