Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 19STCV40706, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV40706    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: 11

19STCV40706 (Albright)

Notice of Intention to Order Supplemental Briefing Re: Class Certification

Date:                           4/19/23

Time:                          10:00 am

Moving Party:           James Albright, Christine Albright, and Paul Major (collectively “Plaintiffs”)

Opposing Party:        Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., et al. (collectively “Farmers Defendants”)

Department:              11

Judge:                        David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND

This is a putative class action.

The operative complaint is the second amended complaint (“SAC”).  It alleges:

[T]he Farmers Defendants utilize a software program throughout California known as 360Value to determine the replacement cost of an insured’s dwelling.  The Farmers Defendants use that replacement cost to set policy limits for the insurance policies they sell to insureds in California.  However, 360Value is inherently inaccurate.  Nonetheless, despite the many flaws inherent to both 360Value and the Farmers Defendants’ use of it, the Farmers Defendants hold themselves out through their agents, marketing materials, websites (for both the Farmers Defendants and for their agents), and other publicly available information, as having expertise in the field of insurance and, more specifically, determining a dwelling’s replacement cost.  The Farmer Defendants and their agents tout 360Value as a sophisticated software program that accurately calculates the replacement cost of a dwelling. . . . By doing so, the Farmers Defendants and their agents undertake a duty to their insureds and breach that duty (along with California law) through their persistent and knowing implementation of their 360Value Scheme.

(SAC, ¶ 2.)

On 2/10/23, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification.

On 4/11/23, the Court signed the parties’ stipulation to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply to the motion for class certification.

On 4/17/23, Plaintiffs’ reply is due by close of business.

On 4/19/23, the motion for class certification is scheduled to be heard.

DISCUSSION

The 4/19/23 hearing remains on calendar, and the Court expects counsel for the parties to appear in person or via LACourtConnect.

However, the Court will not hear oral arguments or decide the motion for class certification on that date because:

* The Court will not have sufficient time to review the reply given that the filing deadline is close of business on 4/17/23.

* Supplemental briefing appears necessary.  Plaintiffs move to certify three classes and eight causes of action (see, e.g., Notice of Motion for Class Certification, pp. ii-iii), but their discussion of the predominance factor is limited to two pages and fails to analyze commonality on a claim-by-claim basis.  (See Motion for Class Certification, pp. 16-17; cf. Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, pp. 14-21.)[1]  Even assuming Plaintiffs plan to include a claim-by-claim analysis in their reply, which is unclear at this point, Farmers Defendants would need to receive an opportunity to respond, especially since such an analysis should have been part of the moving brief.  The fair and efficient way to resolve this problem is to give both sides a chance to file supplemental briefs that address predominance claim-by-claim.

Accordingly, the Court announces its intention to order supplemental briefing regarding class certification and, in particular, predominance.  The briefing schedule and the new hearing date will be set at the 4/19/23 hearing.