Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this suit for overtime compensation by claims examiners, since plaintiff had not shown that it could prove, by common evidence, that all of the claims examiners in the proposed class actually worked overtime; hence there was no preponderance of common issues.  The trial…

California Public Employees Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc.

American Pipe tolling, an equitable doctrine, cannot override the Securities Act’s explicit three-year statute of repose.  Section 13 of the Securities Act (15 USC 77m) sets two time limits on suits for misrepresentations in initial securities offerings under Section 11 of the Securities Act.  The first requires suit to be filed within one year after…

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker

A Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a district court order denying class certification or striking class allegations after the named plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed his individual claims.  After unsuccessfully petitioning for leave to appeal the district court’s order denying class certification, plaintiffs stipulated to a dismissal of the case with…

Resh v. China Agritech, Inc.

Overturning prior precedent, the Ninth Circuit holds that the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for a later class action alleging similar claims.  This decision holds that a string of US Supreme Court cases dealing with other class action issues has effectively overruled Robbin v. Fluor Corp. (9th Cir. 1987) 835…

Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa, Inc.

CAFA removal jurisdiction is based on the complaint as it stands on the date of removal; plaintiff may not defeat CAFA jurisdiction by amending the class definition post-removal to exclude citizens of other states.  After the defendant has removed a class action to federal court under CAFA, the plaintiff may not amend the alleged class…

Dunson v. Cordis Corp.

Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate their eight lawsuits for pre-trial purposes was not sufficient to transform the lawsuits a removable mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act.  Plaintiffs did not “propose a joint trial” of eight separate suits, each with less than 100, but cumulatively with more than the 100 plaintiff threshold needed for removal…

Schoshinski v. City of Los Angeles

City settled a class action lawsuit involving garbage fees by returning the money it had charged class members and agreeing not to impose similar charges in the future, so would-be plaintiffs in a second concurrent class action had already received all the relief they sought in that second case for themselves and no longer had…

Bates v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.

An order denying class certification or striking class allegations is not a final or appealable order and is not certifiable for immediate appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b); instead a party may only seek appellate review under Rule 23(f) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).  An order denying class certification or striking class allegations…

Just Film, Inc. v. Buono

Two nationwide classes were properly certified in a RICO suit alleging that defendants fraudulently collected reimbursement for miscalculated taxes; the plaintiff’s claim was typical as she was harmed by the same scheme as class members, and she proposed adequate methods for proving damages on a classwide basis.  This decision affirms the district court’s certification of…

Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc.

District court abused its discretion by approving a class action settlement which provided no actual benefit to class members in exchange for release of their FDCPA claims.  With the named parties’ consent, a federal magistrate judge may rule on a motion for final approval of a settlement in a class action.  However, the magistrate judge…

Silva v. See’s Candy Shops, Inc.

Employer did not violate California’s minimum wage laws by its policies of rounding employees’ work clock times to the nearest tenth of an hour or by allowing employees up to ten minutes uncompensated time before and after shifts in which to clock in or out.  In this individual and class action as well as PAGA…

Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not require that a plaintiff demonstrate that it is administratively feasible to identify class members as a prerequisite to class certification.  Joining the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits and there is no independent requirement under FRCP 23 that a plaintiff demonstrate that it is administratively feasible to identify…