25 Cited authorities

Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,807 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
Allen v. Wright
468 U.S. 737 (1984) Cited 4,886 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that, even when plaintiffs allege "one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system," it's not justiciable where "the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing"
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 3,136 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"
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court
51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) Cited 1,618 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"
In re Tobacco II Cases
46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,230 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
Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.
84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,027 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate
Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG
443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 625 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding "no class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing"
Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co.
697 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 1,001 times
Holding that district courts have an obligation to hear motions requesting reconsideration of summary judgments
In re Vioxx Class Cases
180 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 191 times 7 Legal Analyses
Rejecting an argument, as an "oversimplification," where plaintiffs argued there was nothing more material than "risk of death" because some patients and doctors would still use the medicine regardless of the risk
Avritt v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co.
615 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2010) Cited 178 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a class was "not cohesive enough to satisfy Rule 23(b)" because "resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims would require numerous individual determinations regarding [the defendant's] representations and each purchaser's reliance"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 361,853 times 962 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 36,245 times 1254 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 18,417 times 316 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Jill Guido et al v. L Oreal, USA Inc. et al

25 Cited authorities

Holding "the standards for establishing standing under section 17204 and eligibility for restitution under section 17203 are wholly distinct"

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 the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate

Holding "no class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing"

Holding that district courts have an obligation to hear motions requesting reconsideration of summary judgments

Rejecting an argument, as an "oversimplification," where plaintiffs argued there was nothing more material than "risk of death" because some patients and doctors would still use the medicine regardless of the risk

Holding that a class was "not cohesive enough to satisfy Rule 23(b)" because "resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims would require numerous individual determinations regarding [the defendant's] representations and each purchaser's reliance"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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