On November 18, the Northern District of California issued an order denying class certification on the sole basis that the proposed named plaintiff was an inadequate class representative under Rule 23(a)(4) due to his prior criminal history.
- Plaintiff James Porath sought to represent a putative class of individuals who had purchased Logitech Z200 speakers. Plaintiff alleged that Logitech deceptively advertised the speakers as having four functional drivers when they had only two. He brought claims for common law fraud and violations of California’s consumer protection statutes on behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers and a California subclass.
- In the October edition of Predominant Issues, we reported on this litigation after the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge William Alsup’s longstanding practice to prohibit class action litigants from discussing class settlement before a class has been certified.
- The purpose of the order, according to the court, is to prevent parties from engaging in collusive settlements or discounting the settlement value due to “a risk of denial of class certification, such as … a denial based on problems with a proposed class representative, including a conflict of interest or a prior criminal conviction.”
- After Logitech sought a writ of mandamus, arguing that the ban on class settlement negotiations violated Rule 23 and the First Amendment, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition due to a lack of clear error. Justice Kagan subsequently denied Logitech’s application for an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.
- On remand, the district court denied class certification solely on the grounds that Porath’s lengthy criminal history (seven convictions, including three felonies, for crimes ranging from burglary to violating restraining orders) and admitted prior substance abuse made him an inadequate class representative. The court offered two reasons for its ruling:
- First, allowing Porath to serve as class representative created the risk that he would be “clobbered on the stand with his convictions.” That risk would be particularly problematic for the California consumer protection law claims, which require proof of reliance on Logitech’s representations. That proof would hinge on Porath’s testimony, which could be easily discredited with his prior convictions.
- Second, given Porath’s criminal history and substance abuse issues, the court found that he could not be trusted to “exercise his fiduciary duties to absent class members,” including “selecting counsel, responding to discovery, and guiding settlement negotiations.” While Porath offered evidence attesting to his recent completion of parole, sobriety, and lack of any legal troubles since 2016, the court determined that “Plaintiff’s crime spree remains too recent, too tender” and that “[c]lass members should not be saddled with such a representative.”
- Notably, the court entered its order even though Logitech did not invoke plaintiff’s criminal history in opposing class certification, commenting that “[t]he district judge must protect the class even as to points not raised by the defense.”
- The court gave plaintiff’s counsel thirty days to find another class representative and allowed Porath to remain in the class as an individual plaintiff.
- The case is Porath v. Logitech, Inc., and the opinion is available here.
