44 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,940 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
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert
444 U.S. 472 (1980) Cited 1,027 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court properly assessed attorney's fees based on the total fund available to the prevailing class rather than the amount actually recovered
Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.
666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 967 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding that false advertising "class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading"
Williams v. Gerber Products
552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 914 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that "reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list ... confirms other representations on the packaging"
Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc.
716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 511 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the presence of individualized damages cannot, by itself, defeat class certification under Rule 23(b) ”
Parsons v. Ryan
754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 462 times
Holding that the "policies and practices to which all members of the class are subjected . . . are the 'glue' that holds together the putative class . . . either each of the policies and practices is unlawful as to every inmate or it is not"
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.
280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 674 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that refusal to certify a class "on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and ‘should be the exception rather than the rule’ " (quoting In re S. Cent. States Bakery Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 86 F.R.D. 407, 423 (M.D. La. 1980) )
Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp.
655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 302 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
Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp.
718 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 257 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that similar allegations were sufficient to establish that a plaintiff "lost money or property" under California's Unfair Competition Law
Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
135 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 318 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 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,849 times 1232 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 134.46 - Marking when name of country or locality other than country of origin appears
19 C.F.R. § 134.46 Cited 6 times 3 Legal Analyses
In any case in which the words "United States," or "American," the letters "U.S.A.," any variation of such words or letters, or the name of any city or location in the United States, or the name of any foreign country or locality other than the country or locality in which the article was manufactured or produced appear on an imported article or its container, and those words, letters or names may mislead or deceive the ultimate purchaser as to the actual country of origin of the article, there shall

Kumar v. Salov North America Corp et al

44 Cited authorities

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 the district court properly assessed attorney's fees based on the total fund available to the prevailing class rather than the amount actually recovered

Holding that false advertising "class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading"

Holding that "reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list ... confirms other representations on the packaging"

Holding that “the presence of individualized damages cannot, by itself, defeat class certification under Rule 23(b) ”

Holding that the "policies and practices to which all members of the class are subjected . . . are the 'glue' that holds together the putative class . . . either each of the policies and practices is unlawful as to every inmate or it is not"

Holding that refusal to certify a class "on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and ‘should be the exception rather than the rule’ " (quoting In re S. Cent. States Bakery Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 86 F.R.D. 407, 423 (M.D. La. 1980) )

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 similar allegations were sufficient to establish that a plaintiff "lost money or property" under California's Unfair Competition Law

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

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"