What is a Motion for Class Certification?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Class Certification

Recent Rulings on Motion for Class Certification

VASQUEZ VS. RESIDENCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Class Certification Standards A plaintiff seeking class certification is required to “demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.

  • Hearing

CHARLENE TANG VS 829 FLOWER, LLC , ET AL.

In support of this contention, 829 Flower cites Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(d) and 3.764(c)(2), which provides in pertinent part that “[n]o reply or closing memorandum of points and authorities shall exceed 10 pages in Length, except a 15-page limit applies to motions for summary judgment or adjudication; or to certify or decertify a class, or to amend or modify a class certification order.” (Objection to Overlength p.2:3-5.) However, an opposition is not a closing or reply memorandum.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALFRED LAX V. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, ET AL.

Substantial Benefits of Class Certification “[A] class action should not be certified unless substantial benefits accrue both to litigants and the courts. . . .” (Basurco v. 21st Century Ins. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 110, 120, internal quotation marks omitted.) The question is whether a class action would be superior to individual lawsuits. (Ibid.) “Thus, even if questions of law or fact predominate, the lack of superiority provides an alternative ground to deny class certification.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

JIMY JUAREZ V. CREATIVE MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.

Substantial Benefits of Class Certification “[A] class action should not be certified unless substantial benefits accrue both to litigants and the courts. . . .” (Basurco v. 21st Century Ins. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 110, 120, internal quotation marks omitted.) The question is whether a class action would be superior to individual lawsuits. (Ibid.) “Thus, even if questions of law or fact predominate, the lack of superiority provides an alternative ground to deny class certification.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

DEREK GEORGE VS CITY OF AVALON

Finally, Defendant moves for a protective order, seeking to preclude discovery unless and until class certification is granted or denied. Demurrer Defendant demurs to each and every cause of action in the complaint, and also demurs to the class action allegations. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NAOMI MOJADDIDI, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC VS. ELITE DINERS, LLC

If the parties are no longer interested in pursuing an ADR option, they shall report on a proposed deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification at such time. Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(B), parties requesting to be heard must call the court and opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARKS VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]

The court also set the matter for a class certification hearing on July 26, 2019. ROA 71-74. Nothing happened (insofar as the court is concerned) for six months. The parties thereafter sought leave to dismiss the class allegations. ROA 79-86. Plaintiff also sought leave to file an amended petition clarifying the non-class relief sought. The court granted both requests at the hearing of July 26, 2019 (ROA 100), and also set the case for a bench trial in June of 2020. ROA 108.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MICHAEL SCOTT VS. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SACRAMENTO VALLEY & NORTHERN NEVADA INC

No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: The parties report that the hearing on Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification has been rescheduled to February 10, 2020. In light of this status, this Court will set the next Case Management Conference for March 19, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., by remote appearance in Department 40.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FONTECCHIO V. FAMILY CARE NETWORK, INC.

The parties participated in an arms-length negotiation and each conducted independent investigations and evaluations, and believe that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, especially given the risks and uncertainty of class certification and the merits of this case.1 (See, Fontecchio Decl., ¶ 6; Hyun Decl., ¶¶ 7-9; Marder Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) Here, the proposed class counsel is experienced in employment actions. (Hyun Decl., ¶¶ 3-6; Marder Decl., ¶¶ 8-14.)

  • Hearing

PERKINS V. EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS, INC.

Motion: by plaintiff for class certification and preliminary approval of class settlement Tentative Ruling: To continue the hearing to March 18, 2021, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 501. To order defendant to appear at the March 18 hearing and show cause, if there is any, why it should not be sanctioned for failing to obey the court’s prior Order that defendant pay complex case fees on or before October 15, 2019.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TERESA VARGAS PEREZ VS THE PARSONS GROUP INC

Without settlement, additional discovery would be required, as well as a motion for class certification, which defendant would oppose by asserting that numerous individualized fact issues exist which outweigh any common issues, and that the action is not manageable on a class-wide basis. Further, even if the class was certified, significant risks would remain, including defendant’s assertion of defenses which could cause a jury to reject or reduce the damages sought.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RENE ALVAREZ VS BERSHTEL ENTERPRISES LLC

May conditional class certification be granted? a. Standards A detailed analysis of the elements required for class certification is not required, but it is advisable to review each element when a class is being conditionally certified. Amchem Products, Inc. v. Winsor (1997) 521 U.S. 591, 620, 622-627. The trial court can appropriately utilize a different standard to determine the propriety of a settlement class as opposed to a litigation class certification.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMANDA A. BINNS, ET AL. VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

The trial court's finding that the delay in moving to compel arbitration until September 5, 2017, almost two years into the litigation and approximately three months before the deadline for the filing of the motion for class certification, was a “strategic decision” is well supported.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

HASHEM BAREKZAI VS CHEMICAL TRANSFER COMPANY, INC.

In Dynamex, the court held that because there were common issues regarding the “B” element, the trial court’s order granting class certification could be affirmed on that basis alone, without considering the other elements. (Id. at 966.) Nevertheless, the court also found common questions predominated as to the “C” element. (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

MILNER VS BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Ready to Roll Transportation, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1226 ("'It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to determine class certification questions before the parties have an opportunity to conduct discovery and present evidence on certification issues.'") (citation omitted). In this case, the court is persuaded that a continuance of the February 19, 2021 class certification hearing is necessary for plaintiffs to obtain relevant pre-certification discovery.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MILNER VS BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION [E-FILE]

Ready to Roll Transportation, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1226 ("'It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to determine class certification questions before the parties have an opportunity to conduct discovery and present evidence on certification issues.'") (citation omitted). In this case, the court is persuaded that a continuance of the February 19, 2021 class certification hearing is necessary for plaintiffs to obtain relevant pre-certification discovery.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FIDELITY NATIONAL HOME WARRANTY CASES [E-FILE]

Are the cases cited by defendant applicable when the court has not denied a class certification, but just a dismissal? 6 What difference is there, if any, that plaintiff's complaint is solely limited to state law claims, rather than federal claims? 7. A judgment on the pleadings was granted on the Fistolera complaint on July 3, 2014 to the class action breach of contract claims? What effect does that have on computing the tolling times? 8.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

EILEEN A. STAATS V. CITY OF PALO ALTO

The hearing on the class certification motion was rescheduled after the City amended its answer to assert an equitable setoff defense, and again to permit the parties to submit supplemental briefing directed by the Court.

  • Hearing

JOHNSON VS WINTER CHEVROLET CO

The 61.85% figure was generated not from the maximum potential recovery, but starting with the $2,905,300 figure, and applying a 50% discount for risk of not prevailing on class certification and another 50% discount related to the risk of loss on the merits and the risk of reduction of multiple PAGA penalties, for a potential class recovery of $726,325. (Thus, the recovery arguably is about 10.7% of the theoretical maximum recovery of $4,164,700.)

  • Hearing

JOHN DAUPHINEE V. BRADLEY DRATNOL

Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 522 [motion for class certification]; Alaubali v. Rite Aid Corp. (9th Cir. 2009) 320 Fed.Appx. 765 (“Alaubali”) [summary judgment]; State ex rel. Dept. of California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, supra, (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1002 [summary judgment]; Collins v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., supra, 207 Cal.App.4th 867 [jury verdict]; Thomas v. Edgington Oil Co. (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 61 [summary judgment]; Dornan v.

  • Hearing

SOLORZANO VS. T&J FRESH CO.

Plaintiff Luis Solorzano’s motion for class certification is DENIED without prejudice. Although Plaintiff’s claims are based on the alleged uniform application of facially invalid policies, the analysis of liability depends on individualized evidence and Plaintiff is not an adequate class representative.

  • Hearing

PATRICK CRAIG, AS TRUSTEE VS CITY OF STOCKTON, ET AL.

The City argues that there would be a new round of pleadings (including a demurrer and/or motion to strike); a class certification motion and opposition (and possibly a direct appeal from any ruling on the class certification motion); motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication; preparation for trial including all the additional parties, the additional causes of action, and the allegations challenging the constitutionality of the PBID establishment and renewal statutes.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

PATRICK CRAIG, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PATRICK D. CRAIG AND KATHRYN A.CRAIG REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST VS CITY OF STOCKTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ET AL.

The City argues that there would be a new round of pleadings (including a demurrer and/or motion to strike); a class certification motion and opposition (and possibly a direct appeal from any ruling on the class certification motion); motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication; preparation for trial including all the additional parties, the additional causes of action, and the allegations challenging the constitutionality of the PBID establishment and renewal statutes.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

DENE STARKS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

After resolution of defendant's motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication, the parties may serve and file a request to set a new hearing date for the motion for class certification and the motions to strike and motions to seal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DENE STARKS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED VS. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

After resolution of defendant's motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication, the parties may serve and file a request to set a new hearing date for the motion for class certification and the motions to strike and motions to seal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 92     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.