they were part of the Reward Zone pre-enrollment process, the Reward Zone membership look-up process, or otherwise, the Court cannot tell if they would remain part of a more narrowly-defined class that excluded those processes. It is entirely possible that cashiers at Best Buy requested PII from Plaintiffs in a manner that violates the Act. If, however, this occurred because the cashier in question deviated from Best Buy’s corporate policies and procedures, maintenance of a class action would not be appropriate, and Plaintiffs would need to pursue their claims as individuals. See Rothman v. Gen. Nutrition Co., Inc., Case No. 11-CIV-03617, 2011 WL 6940490, at *5-6 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 17, 2011); Cortez v. Best Buy Stores, LP, No. 11-CIV-05053, 2012 WL 255345, at *6-7 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (<HOLDING>). If the named Plaintiffs wish to represent a
holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification holding districtwide class certification not appropriate where the claims were based on oral conversations in which store managers allegedly deviated from company policy