739 Fed.Appx. 437 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-56338, Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc.
|Citation:||739 Fed.Appx. 437|
|Party Name:||Nicolas TORRENT, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YAKULT U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Elizabeth Lee Beck, Attorney, Jared Beck, Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, Miami, FL, Cullin OBrien, Cullin OBrien Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff - Appellant Adam R. Fox, Attorney, Helen H. Yang, Squire Sanders (U.S.) LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant - Appellee|
|Judge Panel:||Before: NGUYEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District Judge. FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, dissenting:|
|Case Date:||September 28, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2017 Pasadena, California
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Elizabeth Lee Beck, Attorney, Jared Beck, Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, Miami, FL, Cullin OBrien, Cullin OBrien Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff - Appellant
Adam R. Fox, Attorney, Helen H. Yang, Squire Sanders (U.S.) LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 8:15-cv-00124-CJC-JCG
Before: NGUYEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,[*] District Judge.
Nicolas Torrent ("Torrent") brought a putative class action against Yakult U.S.A.,
Inc. ("Yakult"), claiming false advertising under California state law based on Yakults alleged misrepresentations regarding its probiotic yogurt beverage. The district court denied Torrents motions for class certification and reconsideration and, later, granted his motion to voluntarily dismiss the operative complaint with prejudice. Torrent appealed, seeking review of the district courts orders denying certification and reconsideration. Yakult moves to dismiss the appeal. We assume the parties familiarity with the facts and procedural history.
Yakult argues that we lack appellate jurisdiction in light of Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1702, 1712, 198 L.Ed.2d 132 (2017), which held that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review orders denying class certification after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their individual claims with prejudice. We agree, finding no meaningful distinction between the voluntary dismissal here and the tactic rejected in Baker . Accordingly, Yakults motion is...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP