25 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,629 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 6,947 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 2,228 times 232 Legal Analyses
Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds
568 U.S. 455 (2013) Cited 1,816 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,668 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 748 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 3,050 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 1,203 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
Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.
253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,217 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 1,613 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"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,896 times 1234 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 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 17,824 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices

In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation

25 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 that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”

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

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

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, 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"

Prohibiting unlawful business practices