Sanderson v. Whoop, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff Donrick Sanderson’s motion for class certification in an action alleging that Whoop, Inc. violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law. The court certifies a Rule 23(b)(3) class and a “No Use Autorenewal” subclass concerning automatically renewed and charged Whoop memberships, but declines to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class. The order addresses numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, superiority, and the proposed injunctive-relief class.

Holdings

1. The proposed class and No Use Autorenewal subclass satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement.
2. Sanderson's claims are typical of the proposed class and subclass because they are reasonably co-extensive with the claims of absent class members.
3. Sanderson and Dovel & Luner, LLP are adequate class representatives and class counsel.
4. Common questions predominate over individual questions for the proposed class and No Use Autorenewal subclass.
5. Whether consumers affirmatively consented to an automatic-renewal agreement is evaluated under an objective conspicuousness and assent standard rather than by individualized evidence of what each consumer subjectively understood.
6. The proposed class and subclass present a common Article III standing question because members allegedly suffered economic injury when Whoop charged them for automatic renewals allegedly made unlawful by the Automatic Renewal Law.
7. A class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication.
8. The proposed class may not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because the primary relief sought is monetary damages rather than final injunctive or declaratory relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed class and No Use Autorenewal subclass satisfied Rule 23(a)'s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements.
2. Whether common questions predominated over individual questions under Rule 23(b)(3), including questions concerning Automatic Renewal Law compliance, Article III standing, and damages.
3. Whether a class action was superior to other available methods under Rule 23(b)(3).
4. Whether the proposed class could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) when the primary relief sought was monetary damages.

Disposition

other