47 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,683 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,989 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
569 U.S. 27 (2013) Cited 2,251 times 233 Legal Analyses
Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
554 U.S. 471 (2008) Cited 1,796 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment"
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,698 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.
563 U.S. 804 (2011) Cited 756 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 1,130 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs' commonality must connect to their claim for class relief
Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.
253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,225 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a putative class did not meet the requirements of Rule 23(b) before discussing the elements of Rule 23.
Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.
976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 1,623 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"
Dunleavy v. Nadler
213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 875 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding an incentive award to the class representatives
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,135 times 1237 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Section 335.1 - Assault, battery or injury or death caused by wrongful act or negligence
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 Cited 2,298 times 5 Legal Analyses
Imposing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims
Section 3600 - Generally
Cal. Lab. Code § 3600 Cited 896 times 6 Legal Analyses
Noting that liability for compensation under California's Workers’ Compensation Act is "in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person "
Section 3602 - Willful assault by employer; fraudulent concealment of injury; defective product manufactured by employer
Cal. Lab. Code § 3602 Cited 445 times 1 Legal Analyses
Revealing that California's exclusive-remedy provision explicitly applies to "the employee or his or her dependents "
Section 3493 - Action maintained by private person
Cal. Civ. Code § 3493 Cited 145 times
Permitting a private person to bring an action for public nuisance "if it is specially injurious to himself"

Arnold Goldstein et al v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al

47 Cited authorities

Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"

Holding a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment"

Holding that a plaintiff need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification

Holding that plaintiffs' commonality must connect to their claim for class relief

Holding that a putative class did not meet the requirements of Rule 23(b) before discussing the elements of Rule 23.

Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding an incentive award to the class representatives

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Imposing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims

Noting that liability for compensation under California's Workers’ Compensation Act is "in lieu of any other liability whatsoever to any person "

Revealing that California's exclusive-remedy provision explicitly applies to "the employee or his or her dependents "

Permitting a private person to bring an action for public nuisance "if it is specially injurious to himself"