24 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,637 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”
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
554 U.S. 471 (2008) Cited 1,779 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"
Evon v. Mickell
688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 297 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel acted willfully when he knowingly filed a class certification motion without redacting confidential information in violation of protective order
Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc.
835 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) Cited 243 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that class definition was not overly broad so as to defeat predominance and acknowledging that "the district court may ... adjust the scope of the class definition, if it later finds that the inclusiveness of the class exceeds the limits of [the defendant’s] legal liability"
Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc.
731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 254 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that uniform corporate policies "carry great weight for certification purposes" only where the policies "reflect the realities of the workplace"
In re Deepwater Horizon
739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014) Cited 241 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the common contention under Rule 23 "need not relate specifically to the damages component of the class members’ claims"
Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.
855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988) Cited 482 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presence of questions peculiar to each individual member of the class was no bar when liability arose from a single course of conduct
City of San Jose v. Superior Court
12 Cal.3d 447 (Cal. 1974) Cited 708 times
Holding that government claims procedures are mandatory and failure to file the required claim means the action must be dismissed
Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co.
765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 174 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[p]roving at trial whether such informal or unofficial policies existed” would drive the resolution of class claims
Olden v. LaFarge Corp.
383 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2004) Cited 205 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "individual damage determinations" did not defeat class typicality
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,939 times 1235 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 702 - Personal knowledge required
Cal. Evid. Code § 702 Cited 559 times
Qualifying as an expert witness

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

24 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 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 counsel acted willfully when he knowingly filed a class certification motion without redacting confidential information in violation of protective order

Holding that class definition was not overly broad so as to defeat predominance and acknowledging that "the district court may ... adjust the scope of the class definition, if it later finds that the inclusiveness of the class exceeds the limits of [the defendant’s] legal liability"

Holding that uniform corporate policies "carry great weight for certification purposes" only where the policies "reflect the realities of the workplace"

Holding that the common contention under Rule 23 "need not relate specifically to the damages component of the class members’ claims"

Holding that the presence of questions peculiar to each individual member of the class was no bar when liability arose from a single course of conduct

Holding that government claims procedures are mandatory and failure to file the required claim means the action must be dismissed

Holding that “[p]roving at trial whether such informal or unofficial policies existed” would drive the resolution of class claims

Holding that "individual damage determinations" did not defeat class typicality

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"

Qualifying as an expert witness