Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

October 3, 2018

DR. DAVID S. MURANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellee,
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Defendant-Appellee. JAMES H. PRICE, ERIC ALAN ISAACSON, Interested Parties - Appellants,

          Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-60716-WPD

          Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and GINSBURG, [*] Circuit Judges.


         This appeal was brought to contest the approval of a class-action settlement. Dr. David Muransky filed a class action against Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. for violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). Appellants James Price and Eric Isaacson ("the objectors") objected to a class settlement reached by Dr. Muransky and Godiva. Over their objections, the District Court approved the settlement, class counsel's request for attorney's fees, and an incentive award for Dr. Muransky. After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

         I. Background

         In April 2015, Dr. Muransky filed a class action against Godiva for allegedly violating FACTA. FACTA prohibits merchants from printing "more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction." 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1). The operative complaint alleges that after Dr. Muransky made a purchase at a Godiva store, Godiva gave him a receipt that showed his credit card number's first six and last four digits. Dr. Muransky sought to represent a class of customers whose credit card numbers Godiva printed on receipts in violation of FACTA. These violations, the complaint says, exposed Dr. Muransky and the class "to an elevated risk of identity theft." According to the complaint, Godiva's violation of FACTA was willful, so the class was entitled to statutory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs. See id. § 1681n(a).

         Godiva moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not plausibly allege a willful violation of FACTA. The District Court denied Godiva's motion. After that, the parties engaged in discovery then mediated the case. In late November 2015, the parties notified the court of an agreement in principle to settle the case on a class-wide basis. They requested a stay, which the court granted.

         Two months after that request, Dr. Muransky moved for preliminary approval of the class-action settlement. He explained that the parties agreed to a settlement fund of $6.3 million from which all fees, costs, and class members would be paid. He estimated that class members who submitted a timely claim form would receive around $235 as their pro-rata share of the settlement fund. None of the money would revert to Godiva. Dr. Muransky indicated he intended to apply for an incentive award of up to $10, 000 and that class counsel would move for an award of attorney's fees of up to one-third of the settlement fund, which would be $2.1 million.

         In this motion, Dr. Muransky also argued that the amount class members would recover by submitting a claim compared favorably to their possible recovery had the case proceeded to trial. FACTA provides for a combination of actual and statutory damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a). For statutory damages, FACTA provides for an award of $100 to $1, 000 for each violation. Id. § 1681n(a)(1)(A). Given the nature of the violation, Dr. Muransky acknowledged there was "a good chance" each class member would recover the $100 minimum statutory damage award if the case went to trial. At the fairness hearing, the District Court agreed with Dr. Muransky's assessment, saying it was reasonable for class counsel to have estimated that class members "could [receive] more than double what the class members could get if they went to trial and won the case."

         Dr. Muransky's motion also addressed some of the risks that favored pre-trial settlement. Most notably, Dr. Muransky pointed to two cases then pending before the Supreme Court: Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), on Article III standing, and Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1036 (2016), on class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The outcomes of those two cases, which at the time were uncertain, posed serious risks to the class members' ability to pursue FACTA claims against Godiva. Dr. Muransky also acknowledged the difficulty of proving the "willfulness" of Godiva's FACTA violation, which the District Court also discussed at the fairness hearing. Without proving "willfulness," the class would not be entitled to statutory damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a).

         The motion for preliminary approval also contained a proposed class notice and a proposed schedule of notice, opt-out, and motion deadlines. The proposed notice said Dr. Muransky would seek an incentive award of up to $10, 000 "for his work in representing the class" and that class counsel would seek up to $2.1 million in attorney's fees. The District Court granted the motion for preliminary approval, certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3), and approved the form of notice. Under the preliminary approval order, class members who wanted to be excluded from the settlement were required to give written notice of exclusion to the claims administrator. Those who failed to submit an opt-out certification would be included in the settlement class and bound by its terms. Then to get money from the settlement fund, class members had to file a claim form with the claims administrator. Class members could also file objections, which the court would consider as part of its determination of whether the settlement was fair. After extensions by the District Court, the final deadline for class members to submit claims, object, or opt-out was August 23, and the deadline for Dr. Muransky to move for final settlement approval was September 9.

         Notice of the settlement was sent to 318, 000 class members and over 47, 000 submitted claim forms. Only fifteen class members opted out. Five class members, including Mr. Price and Mr. Isaacson, objected to the settlement. In their objections, Mr. Price and Mr. Isaacson said they are members of the settlement class and that they timely submitted claim forms. Among other arguments, they said notice of Dr. Muransky's attorney's fee motion was inadequate under Rule 23(h); the court should subject any attorney's fee award to a lodestar analysis; and a $10, 000 incentive award was not warranted.

         On September 7, Dr. Muransky moved for final approval of the class settlement and requested an award of $2.1 million in attorney's fees as well as $10, 000 as an incentive award. At the court's direction, Dr. Muransky filed a separate motion for attorney's fees and expenses. The Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") on the attorney's fee motion just four days later, before the objectors filed opposition briefs. The R&R recommended that the District Court grant the motion and award the full amount of $2.1 million. Although the R&R was issued before the objectors filed opposition briefs, the Magistrate Judge considered Mr. Price's and Mr. Isaacson's previously filed objections to the settlement. In addition, soon after the R&R was issued, the objectors filed briefs in opposition to the motion for attorney's fees. They later filed objections to the R&R as well.

         On September 21, the District Court held a fairness hearing, during which objectors' counsel made their case. During the hearing, Mr. Isaacson's counsel raised standing as a new objection, saying that the court needed to decide whether Dr. Muransky had Article III standing. Soon after the hearing, the District Court approved the settlement and awarded the incentive award and attorney's fees to Dr. Muransky and class counsel respectively. In response to the objectors' argument that notice was not adequate, the District Court noted it had "permitted objections to be filed both before and after" the motion for attorney's fees was filed and that "meaningful objections were in fact filed both before and after the filing" of that motion. The court said it had reviewed the class members' objections to the R&R de novo, "taken them into full consideration," and "carefully analyzed" them. The court then found that the requested attorney's fees were reasonable and awarded $2.1 million, one-third of the settlement fund, in fees. The Court also granted the $10, 000 incentive award for Dr. Muransky's "efforts in this case."

         The objectors appealed. They say the District Court abused its discretion by finding that the notice satisfied Rule 23(h), by awarding $2.1 million in attorney's fees, and by awarding $10, 000 as an incentive to Dr. Muransky. Mr. Isaacson raises a fourth issue: he challenges Dr. Muransky's Article III standing to pursue a FACTA claim against Godiva. Before addressing those arguments, we consider the objectors' ability to make them on appeal. We then consider the merits of the arguments properly before us.

         II. Jurisdiction

         A. The objector's right to appeal

         The Supreme Court has held "only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment." Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304, 108 S.Ct. 586, 587 (1988) (per curiam). We start by deciding whether objectors like Mr. Price and Mr. Isaacson are "parties" with the ability to appeal from a district court's judgment. We hold that they are.

         In Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1, 122 S.Ct. 2005 (2002), the Supreme Court addressed whether a nonnamed class member who timely objects to a settlement agreement but does not opt out is a "party for the purposes of appealing the approval of the settlement." Id. at 7, 122 S.Ct. at 2009 (quotation marks omitted). The Court held that nonnamed class members who are bound by a judgment must "be allowed to appeal the approval of a settlement when they have objected at the fairness hearing." Id. at 10, 122 S.Ct. at 2011. "To hold otherwise," the Court explained, "would deprive nonnamed class members of the power to preserve their own interests in a settlement that will ultimately bind them, despite their expressed objections before the trial court." Id.

         Devlin addressed a mandatory settlement class, but not whether objectors to a Rule 23(b)(3) settlement who can opt out of a settlement also are "parties" that can appeal. See id. at 10-11, 122 S.Ct. at 2011 (noting that appeal was the objectors' only option because they could not opt out of the settlement). Since Devlin, the only circuit courts of appeal to have decided this issue have held that class members who object to a Rule 23(b)(3) settlement but do not opt out are "parties" for purposes of appeal.[1] Generally, these courts reason that Devlin "is about party status and one who could cease to be a party is still a party until opting out." Nat'l Ass'n of Chain Drug Stores, 582 F.3d at 40. In AAL High Yield Bond Fund v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 361 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004), this Court ruled that objectors who were not class members could not appeal because they were not "parties who are actually bound by a judgment." Id. at 1310. Yet at the same time, we know that actual class members who object but do not opt out of a Rule 23(b)(3) class settlement are still bound by the judgment approving the class settlement. See Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614-15, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 2245 (1997). With all of this in mind, we conclude that class members who object to Rule 23(b)(3) class settlements but do not opt out are "parties" for purposes of appeal. Mr. Price and Mr. Isaacson are therefore proper parties.

         B. Article III standing

         "We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo." Day v. Persels & Assocs., LLC, 729 F.3d 1309, 1316 (11th Cir. 2013). Article III of the Constitution limits our jurisdiction to "cases" or "controversies." Standing is one of the essential components of Article III's case or controversy requirement. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992). Standing, in turn, has "three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability." Nicklaw v. Citimortgage, Inc., 839 F.3d 998, 1001 (11th Cir. 2016). An injury in fact must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. at 2136. Mr. Isaacson argues that Dr. Muransky has not alleged a concrete injury in fact that confers Article III standing under the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1548. We have concluded to the contrary.

         To determine whether a statutory violation results in a concrete injury, we consider both "history and the judgment of Congress." Id. at 1549. More specifically, we look to whether the intangible harm that results from the statutory violation bears a "close relationship" to harms that have "traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts." Id. And we consider the judgment of Congress because it "is well positioned to identify intangible harms that meet minimum Article III requirements." Id.

         But before we get ahead of ourselves, we stop to examine the duties imposed and the rights conferred by FACTA. FACTA, which is an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, "is aimed at protecting consumers from identity theft." Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). To do that, FACTA imposes a duty on merchants "that accept[] credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business" not to "print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction." 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1). FACTA authorizes customers to bring private actions against merchants that willfully or negligently violate this duty. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n(a); 1681o(a). A merchant willfully violates FACTA by acting in knowing violation of its statutory duties or by acting in reckless disregard of those duties. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 57-58, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 2208-09 (2007). For willful violations, customers may recover actual damages or statutory damages from $100 to $1000, and punitive damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1), (a)(2); Safeco, 551 U.S. at 53, 127 S.Ct. at 2206. Customers can recover statutory damages for willful violations even if they cannot show their identity was stolen or credit impacted, 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a), and even if they received and kept the defective receipt. Engel v. Scully & Scully, Inc., 279 F.R.D. 117, 125-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). By contrast, when the violation is a result of negligence, customers can only recover their actual damages as well as attorney's fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a); Engel, 279 F.R.D. at 125-26.

         Dr. Muransky alleged that Godiva willfully violated its duty not to print more than five digits of his credit card number on a receipt. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c(g)(1), 1681n(a). We must therefore examine whether a merchant's willful violation of FACTA's card-truncation duties and any resulting harms bears a "close relationship" to causes of action recognized at common law. See Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549. This court has made similar inquiries, analogizing to common law causes of actions in three cases decided since Spokeo. In Perry v. Cable News Network, Inc., 854 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2017), we held that the violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act conferred standing based in part on an analogy between the private right of action created by the Act and the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. Id. at 1341. Likewise, Pedro v. Equifax, Inc., 868 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2017) analogized the violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act based on reporting inaccurate credit information to the tort of defamation. Id. at 1279-80. Conversely, in Nicklaw, this Court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to analogize his statutory cause of action for the failure to timely record a (since recorded) satisfaction of mortgage to a common law quiet title action. 839 F.3d at 1002-03.

         Here, Godiva's disclosure of Dr. Muransky's credit card number is similar to the common law tort of breach of confidence. See Alicia Solow-Niederman, Beyond the Privacy Torts: Reinvigorating a Common Law Approach for Data Breaches, 127 Yale L.J. F. 614, 624-26 (2018) (arguing that data breaches resemble the common law tort of breach of confidence).[2] Typical breach of confidence cases involve a customer entrusting formulas, letters, or images to a trusted person, including merchants, who would without permission disclose these items to other people, or to the public, or use them for personal gain. See Richards & Solove, 96 Geo. L.J. at 135-38 (collecting cases); cf. United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 652-55, 117 S.Ct. 2199, 2207-08 (1997) (establishing the misappropriation theory of insider trading based on similar principles). An important difference between the breach of confidence tort and privacy torts is the identification of the harm. In privacy suits, the harm is usually construed in terms of exposure, "with an emphasis on publication as the cause of the harm." Solow-Niederman, 127 Yale L.J. F. at 621; see, e.g., Peterson v. Idaho First Nat. Bank, 367 P.2d 284, 286-88 (Idaho 1961) (rejecting a tort claim because disclosure of a customer's bank records to his employer did not amount to public disclosure for purposes of the right to privacy). But in breach of confidence cases, the harm happens when the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.