In the published portion of Choi v. Mario Bodescu Skin Care, Inc., 248 Cal.App.4th 292 (Jun. 21, 2016), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) affirmed final approval of a class action settlement involving UCL, CLRA and other claims.
In so doing, the panel rejected the objector's argument that, for purposes of the CLRA claim, the published notice was deficient because it failed to comport with Civil Code section 1781(d). Id. at 298-300. That section, the Court held, does not apply to settlement notices, which are governed by section 1781(f). Id. at 299. The published notice was fully compliant with the latter provision, which grants the trial court broader "discretion to fashion notice of a settlement class." Id. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving one-time published notice in Parade magazine. See id.
The panel also questioned whether the CLRA's notice provisions were intended to apply to nationwide class actions, or in actions asserting both CLRA and other claims:
Furthermore, it is infeasible to comply with the requirement in Civil Code section 1781, subdivision (d) to give notice in “a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the transaction occurred.” Determining in which counties around the United States sales of the creams occurred in this case would be impossible. Civil Code section 1781 does not appear to govern nationwide consumer class actions. The McLaren Objectors have not demonstrated that Civil Code section 1781, subdivision (d) applies to require four-times notice to a nationwide settlement class, particularly where other class claims were alleged and all of the remedies were obtained under causes of action other than the CLRA.
Id. at 300.