What is a Motion for Class Certification?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Class Certification

Recent Rulings on Motion for Class Certification

ERNEST CUADRA VS FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Further, Plaintiff contends that a stay is not warranted as there is minimal risk of inconsistent rulings between this action and Fedex I, because the instant action will proceed immediately to determination on the merits whereas Fedex I will only proceed if class certification is achieved. (Opposition, 10.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ARANGO VS. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

There is neither a class certification deadline nor a trial date, so there is more than enough time for Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation to defend against the FAC. In any event, Defendant identifies no potential prejudice in its untimely opposition, which appears to be largely copied and pasted from a motion seeking relief from a default judgment. The motion for leave to amend is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

JOSE CARRILLO V. NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, 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

    Sep 17, 2020

ORR V. PETVET CARE CENTERS (CALIFORNIA), INC., ET AL.

The settlement 6 therefore represents 27.42% of the potential recovery. 7 Plaintiff asserts that there is a real risk that nothing will be recovered if litigation 8 continues and class certification is denied. Plaintiff also states that further litigation will require 9 the expenditure of significant time and financial resources. 10 Overall, the court finds that the settlement is fair. It provides for some recovery for each 11 class member and eliminates the risk and expense of further litigation. 12 C.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

SEBASTIAN GUPTA V. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.

It also appears that defendant is seeking to litigate at the pleading stage whether the requirements for class certification have been met. “Where there is a reasonable possibility that the plaintiff in a class action can establish a community of interest among class members, the preferred course is to defer decision on the propriety of the class action until an evidentiary hearing has been held on the appropriateness of class litigation.” Canon U.S.A., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

RICHARD SMIGELSKI IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY VS. PENNYMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES INC

The parties agree that this Court's previously-set deadline of October 30, 2020 for the filing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification should be vacated. In light of the parties' joint report, the Court vacates the deadline of October 30, 2020 for the filing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court also notes that the prior deadline was set before the COVID-19 impact on Court operations. The Court defers setting a new deadline given the status of the case.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

J CAMERON HANSEN VS. SO CAL DOMINOIDS INC [E-FILE]

A PAGA plaintiff is not required to satisfy class certification requirements. Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 987. Defendant's reliance on federal and other trial court authorities for the proposition that courts strike PAGA claims based on manageability is unpersuasive. See MPA at pp.13-15. What another trial court may have done in another case simply has no bearing on this Court's ruling. Conclusion Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

No appearance is required subject to the following conditions: Plaintiffs report that their motion for class certification was filed on August 28, 2020, with a hearing set (in Department 53) for October 1, 2020. Defendant's Case Management Statement was filed August 26, 2020, understandably without the benefit of knowing this recent development.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PERELTSVAIG V. CARTUS CORPORATION

The settlement therefore represents a range of 26% to 57% of the potential recovery. 4 Plaintiff asserts that there are risks regarding Defendant’s arbitration agreements with 5 40% of the class, the difficulty of obtaining class certification, and the uncertainty of litigation 6 during the ongoing nationwide shutdown due to Covid. 7 Overall, the court finds that the settlement is fair. It provides for some recovery for each 8 class member and eliminates the risk and expense of further litigation. 9 C.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

RAMIREZ V. CSI

Consolidated cases: Fresno Superior Court Case No. 18CECG004150 Motion: by plaintiff for class certification and preliminary approval of settlement Tentative Ruling: To deny without prejudice. Explanation: 1. Class Certification a. Legal Standards Class certification for settlement must be shown by the same standards as class certification for trial, with the exception of trial manageability. (Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MORAN VS PRIME HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT INC.

Plaintiff Moran’s Motion to Certify Class 2. Status Conference

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

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

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint stipulation and order continuing hearing dates on plaintiff's motion for class certification on October 9, 2020 and the case management conference scheduled for September 4, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PHILLIPS VS. SO-CAL DOMINOIDS INC

A uniform policy may be a convenient or desirable way to show commonality of interest in a case where class certification is sought, but it is not a condition for discovery, or even success, in a PAGA action, where recovery on behalf of the state and aggrieved employees may be had for each violation, whether pursuant to a uniform policy or not. (See Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (g)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PHILLIPS VS. SO-CAL DOMINOIDS INC

A uniform policy may be a convenient or desirable way to show commonality of interest in a case where class certification is sought, but it is not a condition for discovery, or even success, in a PAGA action, where recovery on behalf of the state and aggrieved employees may be had for each violation, whether pursuant to a uniform policy or not. (See Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (g)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LOPEZ VS. OTTNO INC.

What changed between the class certification briefing and today, other than Defendant deciding not to enforce otherwise valid class action waivers? 6. The parties discuss formal and informal discovery only in general terms. As regards formal discovery, were defense depositions taken? The moving papers appear to mention only depositions of plaintiffs and class members. As regards informal discovery, did any informal discovery take place apart from the exchanges associated with mediation?

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

RAMIREZ VS ST. GEORGE AUTO SALES INC.

A demurrer to class action allegations may be sustained without leave only if court concludes as matter of law that, assuming truth of factual allegations, “there is no reasonable possibility that the requirements for class certification will be satisfied”. (Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1034, 1041-1042.) “It is often premature for a trial court to make determinations pertaining to class suitability on demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

RAMIREZ VS ST. GEORGE AUTO SALES INC.

A demurrer to class action allegations may be sustained without leave only if court concludes as matter of law that, assuming truth of factual allegations, “there is no reasonable possibility that the requirements for class certification will be satisfied”. (Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1034, 1041-1042.) “It is often premature for a trial court to make determinations pertaining to class suitability on demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

AZEEZ VS SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC [EFILE]

Defendant is ordered to produce the names and contact information which are relevant to determine whether there is sufficient similarity between plaintiff and the putative class with regard to the motion for class certification. It is irrelevant plaintiff only worked there four months because he allegedly stands in a representative capacity.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA C MARQUINA VS COUNTRY VILLA SERVICE CORP ET AL

Given the Court granted class certification for the purpose of settlement in its prior ruling, this ruling will only address the remaining issue of attorneys’ fees. To the extent necessary, the background of the action and the summary of the settlement set forth in the Court’s February 7, 2020 Ruling are incorporated by reference.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

AZEEZ VS SC VALLEY ENGINEERING INC [EFILE]

Defendant is ordered to produce the names and contact information which are relevant to determine whether there is sufficient similarity between plaintiff and the putative class with regard to the motion for class certification. It is irrelevant plaintiff only worked there four months because he allegedly stands in a representative capacity.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LORI GILL V. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

Ready to Roll Transportation, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1224 [trial court erred in denying an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery on issues related to class certification]; Barry v. OC Residential Properties, LLC (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 861, 867.) None of the cases cited by the City, however, discuss due process in the context of a case found to be entitled to preference.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

LITZY CASTILLO VS. MIMOSA HOUSE LLC

Should no settlement be reached, the Court sets January 15, 2021 as the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's motion for class certification. 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

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DELGADO VS STATEWIDE FUMIGATION SAN DIEGO COUNTY INC [E-FILED]

On Sept. 1, 2017, the court addressed class certification (as re-scheduled as set forth above). The court denied certification, based on plaintiff's failure to file a brief establishing the propriety of class treatment. The court found that by failing to file moving papers addressing the factors outlined by the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court, plaintiff had failed to carry his burden of demonstrating the propriety of class certification.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MAXWELL V. CRAWFORD

To further order that defendants may not communicate with putative class members about this litigation absent prior approval of the court, with such restriction to last until judgment is entered or class certification is denied. Explanation: 1. Findings of Fact In early to mid-2018, the parties were having conflicts over the content of Belaire- West notices to be sent to the putative class members.

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BRADY V. PATENAUDE & FELIX

Notwithstanding this direction to appear to discuss the notice, the parties 5 must give notice in accordance with the Rules of Court and local rules if either intends to contest 6 any portion of this tentative ruling. 7 Conclusion 8 Defendant’s motion for class certification is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 88     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.