Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Certification

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The district court abused its discretion in certifying classes in this suit by plaintiffs who had accepted defendants' agreements for lump sum payments in return for the plaintiffs' rights to receive payments over time under structured settlements from prior litigation.  In every state, defendants' agreements had to be approved by a state court, some with more, some with less stringent… Read More

Affirming denial of class certification in this case charging Folsom with a public and private nuisance of furnishing its customers with too acidic, chlorinated water that corroded copper pipes, the court holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that individual questions as to liability predominated.  Folsom's own expert studies showed only that its water "could"… Read More

The district court abused its discretion in denying class certification of a claim that defendant violated California labor laws by requiring employees to remain on premises during rest breaks.  The evidence showed that defendant enforced that policy consistently across all its employees, making the claim suitable for class certification.  However, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying… Read More

The district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying two California and one national classes in a suit by detained immigrants against the private company that ran the detention centers.  The defendant's written corporate policies required inmates to work, cleaning bathrooms and other public areas under threat of discipline, and the defendant had a policy of misclassifying inmates as… Read More

The district court abused its discretion in denying class certification on the ground of lack of numerosity in this Title IX case charging unequal sports programs for females in Hawaii state schools.  The absolute size of the class--300 currently enrolled students--satisfied numerosity, as the plaintiff's claims challenged the state's overall treatment of female athletes, necessarily affecting all 300 female athletes. … Read More

Distinguishing Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1702, Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 983 F.3d 1115, and Sperring v. LLR, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 995 F.3d 680, which involved voluntary dismissals in order to appeal from class certification orders or orders compelling arbitration, as to which Rule 23(f) or 9 USC 16 prescribe different appellate… Read More

Statistical evidence is admissible to establish predominance under FRCivP 23(b)(3) if that evidence would be admissible in an individual action on the same claim, the statistical evidence is linked to the plaintiffs' theory of liability and the use of averaging assumptions does not conceal the variations that otherwise would defeat class certification.  Here, plaintiffs' statistical evidence satisfied those three tests. … Read More

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this case involving the valuation of totaled cars.  While defendants might have uniformly violated a Washington state insurance regulation requiring itemization of deductions in calculating the car's value, there was no private right of action under the regulation.  Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and unfair trade… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this wage and hour case.  Insofar as plaintiff claimed that the employer's rounding of hours worked was illegal, the trial court properly found that noncommon issues predominated because it had no single rounding policy but left matters up to managers at its different locations.  Plaintiff's theory that… Read More

Following Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 666 F.3d 581, this decision holds that the district court erred in certifying a nationwide class of end purchasers of computer equipment containing Qualcomm chips under Rule 23(b)(3).  To determine the law applicable to the class' antitrust claims, the court must apply California's governmental interest analysis.  Here, the only… Read More