22 Cited authorities

Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court
34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) Cited 518 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers
Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.
23 Cal.4th 429 (Cal. 2000) Cited 535 times 1 Legal Analyses
Reversing and remanding for reconsideration because the court was not "prepared to say that class treatment necessarily is proper," and "upon a fresh look [the trial court] may discern valid reasons for denying" the certification motion
Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc.
1 Cal.5th 480 (Cal. 2016) Cited 206 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding "that trial courts have discretion to conduct a lodestar cross-check on a percentage fee"
O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.
201 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2016) Cited 168 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that this factor did not favor approval because "the non-monetary relief is of limited benefit to the class"
Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.
91 Cal.App.4th 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 226 times
Finding that application of California law to a class settlement was appropriate when "substantial numbers of class members are located in California"
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court
29 Cal.4th 1096 (Cal. 2003) Cited 198 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding evidence of exposure alone not enough to ground claim for medical monitoring
Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp.
89 Cal.App.4th 908 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 170 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that “proof of breach of warranty does not require proof the product has malfunctioned but only that it contains an inherent defect which is substantially certain to result in malfunction during the useful life of the product”
Haralson v. U.S. Aviation Servs. Corp.
383 F. Supp. 3d 959 (N.D. Cal. 2019) Cited 92 times
Following O'Connor
Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc.
4 Cal.5th 260 (Cal. 2018) Cited 83 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Hernandez the California Supreme Court held that unnamed class members who have not intervened may not appeal under California Code of Civil Procedure § 902.
Cohen v. DirecTV Inc.
178 Cal.App.4th 966 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 90 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that "common issue of fact do not predominate over the proposed class because the class would include subscribers who never saw DIRECTV advertisements or representations of any kind before deciding to purchase the company's HD services"

Order

22 Cited authorities

Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers

Reversing and remanding for reconsideration because the court was not "prepared to say that class treatment necessarily is proper," and "upon a fresh look [the trial court] may discern valid reasons for denying" the certification motion

Holding "that trial courts have discretion to conduct a lodestar cross-check on a percentage fee"

Finding that this factor did not favor approval because "the non-monetary relief is of limited benefit to the class"

Finding that application of California law to a class settlement was appropriate when "substantial numbers of class members are located in California"

Holding evidence of exposure alone not enough to ground claim for medical monitoring

Holding that “proof of breach of warranty does not require proof the product has malfunctioned but only that it contains an inherent defect which is substantially certain to result in malfunction during the useful life of the product”

Following O'Connor

In Hernandez the California Supreme Court held that unnamed class members who have not intervened may not appeal under California Code of Civil Procedure § 902.

Finding that "common issue of fact do not predominate over the proposed class because the class would include subscribers who never saw DIRECTV advertisements or representations of any kind before deciding to purchase the company's HD services"