Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.
| Citation | 273 F.3d 1266 |
| Decision Date | 14 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-17073,99-17073 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) ROBIN ZINSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACCUFIX RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC., formerly d.b.a. as TPLC, INC., and TELECTRONICS PACING SYSTEMS, now known as TPLC HOLDINGS, INC., a Colorado corporation; PACIFIC DUNLOP LIMITED, and NUCLEUS LIMITED; NUCLEUS LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
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 the Eastern District of California. Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-0414-GEB DAD.
Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge GOULD; Dissent by Judge B. FLETCHER.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kihn v. Bill Graham Archives, LLC
...to certify a class. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc. , 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.) opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).Plaintiffs seek to certify two separate classes alleging separate, but related claims for relief. Rye Boy, as representative of the C......
-
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.
...different states. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). Darisse argues that California law should apply to the entire class. His first argument is that a choice of law clause in Nest's End U......
-
Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp.
...of Rule 23." Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1309 (9th Cir. 1977)). 2. Application of Legal Standards The parties have engaged in......
-
Husted v. Taggart (In re ECS Ref., Inc.)
...2012) (quoting Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc. , 253 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001), opinion amended on denial of reh'g , 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of law principle that "recognizes that only one State should have the authority to reg......
-
The ERISA Litigation Newsletter (December 2013)
...monetary claims belong in Rule 23(b) (3)."); Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1193-95 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (same‑requests for monetary damages under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) could be certified outside 23(b)(3) only if they were "incidental" ......
-
Use and misuse of expert opinions at the class certification stage: use of expert opinions should not be permitted, but if courts continue to do so, defendants must attack the expert's qualifications and present their own.
...1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 2001) (differences in state law compound disparities among class members from different states), opinion amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001); In re Ford Motor Co. Ignition Switch Prods. Liab. Litig., 194 F.R.D. 484, 490 (D. N.J. 2000); Castano, 84 F.3d at (7.) See In......