Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co.

6 Citing briefs

  1. Aiona et al v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    MOTION to Remand to Superior Court of California for San Francisco County

    Filed November 24, 2014

    Chem. Co., the Ninth Circuit held that seven individual state court actions, each with fewer than one hundred plaintiffs, could not be treated as a single “mass action” because neither the parties nor the trial court proposed “jointly” trying their claims as required by CAFA. Tanoh v. Dow. Chem. Co., 561 F.3d at 950. Absent an explicit request for a joint trial in the petition itself, the cases included in a Petition for Coordination fail to meet the statutory requirements of CAFA to constitute a “mass action.”

  2. Celena King vs. Great American Chicken Corp., Inc et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court 38

    Filed January 11, 2018

    12 See also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (though the plaintiff’s complaint alleged plaintiffs’ were “residents” of California, that did not supply the defendants with a basis to remove based on a contention that the plaintiff was a citizen of California, and defendant’s “failure to specify Plaintiffs’ state of citizenship was fatal to defendants assertion of diversity jurisdiction”). Case 2:17-cv-04510-GW-AS Document 40 Filed 01/11/18 Page 12 of 29 Page ID #:641 6 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND LA 133443056v6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and therefore passed CAFA. Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 952 (9th Cir. 2009, cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 187 (2009); see also See Pub. L. No. 109-2, § 2(a)(4), 119 Stat.

  3. Steve Chambers et al v. Whirlpool Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 218

    Filed June 24, 2016

    Congress enacted CAFA “primarily to curb perceived abuses of the class action device.” Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 952 (9th Cir. 2009). Coupon settlements in which class members receive coupons or vouchers but class counsel receive a large cash attorney fee were some of the abuses Congress sought to curb with CAFA’s passage in 2005.

  4. In Re:

    REPLY Combined Reply In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Settlement Class and Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval as to Gentry Plaintiffs MOTION for Settlement Approval of Class Settlement 185 , MOTION to Certify Class 184

    Filed June 14, 2014

    Neither the letter nor spirit of Rule 23 requires Settling Plaintiffs (or any plaintiff) to allege every conceivable theory of liability. See Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co., 561 F.3d 945, 953 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing class action plaintiffs are “masters of their complaint”). To do so, even when such theories appear weak or meritless in addition to being unsuitable for class treatment, would operate to the detriment of both Virginia residents and the entire class.

  5. Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

    REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:

    Filed November 6, 2009

    For present purposes, it is notable that the Palm Harbor Court based its decision in part on the fact that plaintiff “did not invoke any procedure authorizing the action to be brought by it in a representative capacity,” an infirmity equally applicable to FGA’s “mass action” theory. FGA’s attempt to distinguish away Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 953 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, No. 08-1589, 2009 WL 1849804 (Oct. 5, 2009), is likewise unavailing.

  6. Aaron et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

    Reply Memorandum re Motion to Remand

    Filed August 2, 2013

    Id. (quoting Tanoh v. Dow Chemical Co., 561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs have, therefore, structured there claims in accordance with governing law and rules and their case is not subject to CAFA jurisdiction.