Stemmelin v. Matterport, Inc.

Background

John Stemmelin brought a putative class action against Matterport, Inc., and its officers in connection with Matterport’s 3D camera business. The complaint included claims under unfair- and false-advertising laws and various states’ business-opportunity laws. The court previously denied Stemmelin’s request to certify an Illinois class and a nationwide class, among other reasons because common issues did not predominate. Stemmelin later withdrew his Illinois claims, leaving Matterport, Inc. as the only remaining defendant.

In August 2022, the court granted Matterport summary judgment on Stemmelin’s request for a declaration that he owned certain scanned images, but denied summary judgment on his California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim and request for injunctive relief. Stemmelin then filed a second motion to certify a class, this time seeking an injunction-focused class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). Matterport moved to strike that renewed motion.

Analysis

Rule 23(c)(1)(C) allows a class-certification order to be changed or amended before final judgment. The court stated that several judges in the district apply the standard for reconsideration to serial class-certification motions. Under that standard, reconsideration may be granted when there is an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or material facts or decisive legal arguments that the court previously failed to consider.

The court declined to adopt a contrary approach from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that would allow a renewed motion based only on a clearer proposed class definition, even without new evidence or a change in law. The court reasoned that allowing repeated certification motions could encourage strategic overbreadth in an initial motion, waste judicial resources, and prolong litigation.

The court found that Stemmelin’s second motion was filed five months after denial of his first motion and two months after the deadline for dispositive motions. It held that this delay independently supported striking the motion. The court also held that Stemmelin had not satisfied the reconsideration standard: he identified no new material evidence or change in law and did not show that the court had overlooked material facts or decisive arguments. His standing to seek injunctive relief, which the summary-judgment order had recognized, was not a changed circumstance supporting reconsideration.

The court further concluded that Stemmelin’s narrower proposed class was based on evidence he previously could have used. Stemmelin acknowledged that he had not previously anticipated the need to seek certification of an injunction-focused class and had relied on most of the same evidence. The court found that a webpage allegedly showing that Matterport had abandoned its partner program was not substantively new and did not establish changed circumstances. The court also stated that the motion appeared connected to another Matterport-related lawsuit with an identical class definition, largely similar pleadings, and the same plaintiff’s counsel.

Disposition

The court granted Matterport’s motion to strike, and the second class-certification motion was stricken. This order addressed the renewed class-certification request; it did not resolve the merits of Stemmelin’s remaining California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim or request for injunctive relief.