54 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,883 times 508 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”
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,815 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 3,110 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"
In re Tobacco II Cases
46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,224 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied
In re Prudential Insurance Company
148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 1,391 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding the district court acted well within its discretion in denying an objector's request for discovery where the objector was able to present his arguments to the court during the fairness hearing and where the court found the objector "had ample opportunity to avail himself of the substantial discovery provided to Lead Counsel but failed to do so, and that additional discovery was unnecessary because [the objector] focused primarily on legal issues"
Bates v. U. P. S
511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 766 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding where claim involved facially discriminatory qualification standard, the Teamsters burden-shifting protocol is inapplicable
Wash. Mut. Bank v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.
24 Cal.4th 906 (Cal. 2001) Cited 575 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a choice of law provision may not be disregarded “merely because it may hinder the prosecution of multi-state or nationwide class action or [exclude] nonresident consumers from a California-based class action”
Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos
103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 564 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that procedural due process does not require the jury to be instructed that "a reasonable relationship must exist between the amounts of compensatory and exemplary damages"
Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp.
655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 305 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court erred in denying class certification by requiring individualized proof of reliance and causation, and remanding in light of In re Tobacco II Cases
Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
135 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 321 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal cases requiring “'extrinsic evidence,' such as expert testimony or consumer surveys...do not accurately reflect California law.”
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 162,307 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 Cited 50,999 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
Section 17203 - Injunctive relief
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 Cited 1,013 times 5 Legal Analyses
Requiring that an individual plead that she lost "money or property" because of the alleged deceptive conduct

Hohenberg v. Ferrero USA, Inc

54 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 “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Holding where claim involved facially discriminatory qualification standard, the Teamsters burden-shifting protocol is inapplicable

Holding that a choice of law provision may not be disregarded “merely because it may hinder the prosecution of multi-state or nationwide class action or [exclude] nonresident consumers from a California-based class action”

Holding that procedural due process does not require the jury to be instructed that "a reasonable relationship must exist between the amounts of compensatory and exemplary damages"

Holding that a district court erred in denying class certification by requiring individualized proof of reliance and causation, and remanding in light of In re Tobacco II Cases

Holding that federal cases requiring “'extrinsic evidence,' such as expert testimony or consumer surveys...do not accurately reflect California law.”

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

Requiring that an individual plead that she lost "money or property" because of the alleged deceptive conduct