SEVIDAL

SEVIDAL v. Target Corp.

Good Law
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66·189 Cal. App. 4th 905·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1858
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 29, 2010D056206California9,039 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

After purchasing three clothing items from Target Corporation’s Web site that were misidentified as made in the United States, Raymundo B. Sevidal brought a class action against Target, alleging fraud and violation of unfair competition and false advertising laws, and seeking injunctive and restitutionary relief. Sevidal then moved to certify a class of California consumers who bought imported items from Target’s Web site that were similarly misidentified. Sevidal argued that under the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 207 P.3d 20 ] (Tobacco II), the class could be certified on his unfair competition claim even if most of the proposed class members never relied on the “Made in USA” designation in deciding to make their online purchases.

The trial court agreed with Sevidal’s interpretation of Tobacco II on the reliance element, but declined to certify the class because it found Sevidal did not meet his burden to establish other necessary elements of a class action, including that the proposed class was ascertainable. The court additionally found the proposed class was overbroad because the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.