29 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”
Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin
417 U.S. 156 (1974) Cited 3,760 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions
Sosna v. Iowa
419 U.S. 393 (1975) Cited 1,733 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the requisite Article III "case or controversy" may exist "between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff, even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot"
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"
East Texas Motor Freight v. Rodriguez
431 U.S. 395 (1977) Cited 1,303 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs who lacked qualifications to be hired as drivers suffered no injury from alleged discriminatory practices and therefore lacked standing to represent class of persons who did suffer injury
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"
Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co.
472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 820 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the typicality requirement was not satisfied where the plaintiff's proposed class "include[d] people who knew fountain Diet Coke contained saccharin and bought it anyway" when the plaintiff "claim[ed] she was deceived and injured"
Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops
155 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998) Cited 715 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that class certification was improper because "plaintiffs simply cannot advance a single collective breach of contract action on the basis of multiple different contracts" when there are "manifest conflicts of interest" in their claimed recovery
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
Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.
51 Cal.4th 524 (Cal. 2011) Cited 175 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court's ruling that ZIP code information constitutes personal information within the meaning of section 1747.08 applies retrospectively
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 2710 - Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records
18 U.S.C. § 2710 Cited 207 times 71 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting disclosure of "personally identifiable information concerning" consumer of video rental establishment without consent
Section 1747.08 - Personal identification information
Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08 Cited 114 times 29 Legal Analyses
Providing for a civil penalty of no greater than $250 for the first violation and $1,000 for subsequent violations
Section 205.9 - Receipts at electronic terminals; periodic statements
12 C.F.R. § 205.9 Cited 7 times
Displaying the fee on a screen provides adequate notice, as long as a consumer is given the option to cancel the transaction after receiving notice of a fee

Michael Mehrens v. Redbox Automated Retail LLC et al

29 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 individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

Holding that the requisite Article III "case or controversy" may exist "between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff, even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot"

Holding that plaintiffs who lacked qualifications to be hired as drivers suffered no injury from alleged discriminatory practices and therefore lacked standing to represent class of persons who did suffer injury

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 the typicality requirement was not satisfied where the plaintiff's proposed class "include[d] people who knew fountain Diet Coke contained saccharin and bought it anyway" when the plaintiff "claim[ed] she was deceived and injured"

Holding that class certification was improper because "plaintiffs simply cannot advance a single collective breach of contract action on the basis of multiple different contracts" when there are "manifest conflicts of interest" in their claimed recovery

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 the court's ruling that ZIP code information constitutes personal information within the meaning of section 1747.08 applies retrospectively

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 disclosure of "personally identifiable information concerning" consumer of video rental establishment without consent

Providing for a civil penalty of no greater than $250 for the first violation and $1,000 for subsequent violations

Displaying the fee on a screen provides adequate notice, as long as a consumer is given the option to cancel the transaction after receiving notice of a fee