Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves plaintiffs Steven and Melody Millett, who filed claims against defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Melody Millett was found to lack standing under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) as she did not purchase the product at issue or participate in the contract. The summary judgment on Steven Millett's contract claim was affirmed based on the district court's reasoning. However, the court vacated and remanded Steven Millett’s CLRA claims for reconsideration in light of the California Supreme Court's decision in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., which requires consumers to show actual damage for standing under the CLRA. Additionally, the district court's denial of the motion to reconsider was upheld as there was no abuse of discretion in excluding consumer survey evidence, which was not deemed 'new evidence' under local rules. The appellate decision resulted in a partial affirmation, partial vacatur, and remand, with each party bearing their own appeal costs.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abuse of Discretion in Denial of Motion to Reconsidersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's decision to exclude consumer survey evidence in the reconsideration motion is upheld, as it did not constitute 'new evidence.'
Reasoning: The court found no error in excluding the consumer survey evidence, which did not qualify as 'new evidence' per Local Rule 7-18.
Reconsideration of CLRA Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Steven Millett's CLRA claims are vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the necessity to demonstrate actual damage for standing.
Reasoning: The court vacates and remands Steven Millett's CLRA claims for reconsideration following the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., which states that a consumer must demonstrate actual damage to have standing under the CLRA.
Standing under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Melody Millett lacks standing as she neither purchased the product nor was part of the contract, aligning with precedent.
Reasoning: Melody Millett lacks standing under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) because she did not purchase the Credit Manager product and was not a party to the relevant contract, similar to the precedent set in Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal. Inc.
Summary Judgment in Contract Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's grant of summary judgment for Steven Millett's contract claim is upheld based on existing reasoning.
Reasoning: Summary judgment is affirmed for Steven Millett regarding his contract claim, based on the district court's reasoning.