739 Fed.Appx. 437 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-56338, Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc.

Docket Nº:16-56338
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 O’Brien, Cullin O’Brien 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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 437

739 Fed.Appx. 437 (9th Cir. 2018)

Nicolas TORRENT, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

YAKULT U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56338

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

September 28, 2018

Argued and Submitted December 7, 2017 Pasadena, California

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1.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 O’Brien, Cullin O’Brien 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.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Nicolas Torrent ("Torrent") brought a putative class action against Yakult U.S.A.,

Page 438

Inc. ("Yakult"), claiming false advertising under California state law based on Yakult’s alleged misrepresentations regarding its probiotic yogurt beverage. The district court denied Torrent’s 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 court’s 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 reading

FREE SIGN UP