From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 15, 2001
273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b), (b)(B), (b), and (b), and declining to consider Rule 23 factors upon finding that Rule 23(b) was not satisfied

Summary of this case from In re Amtrak Train Derailment in Philadelphia
See 14 Summaries

Opinion

No. 99-17073.

Argued and Submitted October 30, 2000.

Filed June 15, 2001. Amended December 14, 2001.

Elizabeth J. Cabraser, James M. Finberg (argued), Melanie M. Piech, and Scott P. Nealey, Leiff, Cabraser, Hiemann Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, California; C. Brooks Cutter, Friedman, Callard, Cutter Panneton, Sacramento, California; Robert Hollingsworth, Cors Bassett, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Charles F. Preuss, Thomas J. Pulliam, Jr., and Catherine W. Levin, Preuss, Walker Shanagher, LLP, San Francisco, California; Charles P. Goodell, Jr. (argued), Richard M. Barnes, and Ian Gallacher, Goodell, Devries, Leech Gray, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; John M. LaPlante, Gregory J. Fisher, Edson LaPlante, Sacramento, California; Patrick S. Coffey, Scott J. Fisher (argued), Gardner, Carton Douglass, Chicago, Illinois; Robert S. Epstein, Epstein, Englert, Staley Coffey, San Francisco, California, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for Eastern District of California; Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-0414-GEB-DAD.

Before: B. FLETCHER, O'SCANNLAIN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge GOULD; Dissent by Judge B. FLETCHER.

ORDER

The majority opinion filed June 15, 2001, is amended as follows:

1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. B. 4 (Superiority, Rule 23(b)(3)(D)):

Of course, we do not suggest that the causation difficulties necessarily render class certification impossible.

Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Fletcher has voted to grant the petition for rehearing and recommended granting the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed.R.App.P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

Summaries of

Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 15, 2001
273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001)

holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b), (b)(B), (b), and (b), and declining to consider Rule 23 factors upon finding that Rule 23(b) was not satisfied

Summary of this case from In re Amtrak Train Derailment in Philadelphia

finding causation and damage determinations could present "triable individualized issues" unsuitable for class treatment despite the possibility of common issues pertaining to the defendant's liability

Summary of this case from Harris v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

finding a class action unmanageable because the plaintiff "[sought] certification of a nationwide class for which the law of forty-eight states potentially applies"

Summary of this case from Bernstein v. Virgin Am., Inc.

denying class certification partly because although thousands of patients were implanted with the medical device at issue, only nine individual lawsuits were pending

Summary of this case from Badella v. Deniro Mktg. LLC

denying certification of monitoring class where plaintiffs sought a fund that would pay for future medical treatment, plus other compensatory and punitive damages

Summary of this case from In re St. Jude Medical, Inc. Silizone Heart Valves Prod. L.

recognizing that legal variation among the laws of the fifty states may provide a basis for denying class certification

Summary of this case from In re Tracfone Unlimited Service Plan Litigation

reviewing a renewed motion to certify after a district court denied the first motion on specific grounds

Summary of this case from Zeiger v. Wellpet LLC

noting that a federal court sitting in diversity must look to the forum state's choice-of-law rules to determine the controlling substantive law

Summary of this case from Julian v. TTE Tech.

noting that under Rule 23, the plaintiff must show that all four of the requirements of Rule 23 are met and then at least one requirement of Rule 23(b)

Summary of this case from Cottle-Banks v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc.

noting that under Rule 23, the plaintiff must show that all four of the requirements of Rule 23 are met and then at least one requirement of Rule 23(b)

Summary of this case from Waine-Golston v. Time Warner Entm't.-Advance/New House P'ship

noting that Plaintiff "bears the burden of demonstrating that [he] has met each of the four requirements of Rule 23 and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b)"

Summary of this case from Lemus v. H R Block Enterprises, LLC

noting that the district court had found that "`although thousands of patients were implanted with the ENCOR lead, only nine lawsuits are pending; this indicates that individual litigation may be sufficient to satisfy potential claims"

Summary of this case from Patton v. Topps Meat Company, LLC

noting that Plaintiff "bears the burden of demonstrating that [he] has met each of the four requirements of Rule 23 and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b)"

Summary of this case from In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage and Hour Litigation

noting that Plaintiff "bears the burden of demonstrating that [he] has met each of the four requirements of Rule 23 and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b)"

Summary of this case from Whiteway v. Fedex Kinko's Office Print Services, Inc.
Case details for

Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Robin ZINSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 15, 2001

Citations

273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001)

Citing Cases

White v. Symetra Assigned Benefits Serv. Co.

, as amended on denial of reh'g, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). The four factors are:…

Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp.

" While the trial court has broad discretion to certify a class, its discretion must be exercised within the…

440 Citing Cases