14 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 4,789 times   474 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”
  2. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 4,868 times   32 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
  3. Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

    467 U.S. 867 (1984)   Cited 525 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that members of a class of black employees of a Federal Reserve Bank could maintain separate actions against the bank under Title VII
  4. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans

    571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 489 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class by relying on uniform exemption policy "to the near exclusion of other factors"
  5. Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos

    103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 396 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"
  6. Molski v. Gleich

    318 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 286 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that decisions based on per se rules are not appropriate because they nullify the discretion vested in the district court through Rule 23
  7. In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg

    571 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 232 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that class certification may be denied when "a fact-intensive inquiry into each potential plaintiff's employment situation" is required
  8. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 221 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Noting that plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages did “not require individualized punitive damages determinations”
  9. Marlo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

    639 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 130 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "as to the class-decertification issue," the party seeking certification continues to bear the burden of showing compliance with Rule 23
  10. Dunbar v. Albertson's, Inc.

    141 Cal.App.4th 1422 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 64 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding denial of class certification where "the court's decision was not based on the mere presence of individual liability issues," but "on the nature of those issues as shown by defendant's evidence"
  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 26,345 times   1017 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"
  12. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 362 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)