green
Positive treatment
Hot · 92 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 7×
19.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…in determining superiority, 2 courts must consider the four factors of rule 23(b)(3).
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Boone v. Amazon Services, LLC
in determining superiority, 2 courts must consider the four factors of rule 23(b)(3).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.
in determining superiority, 13 courts must consider the four factors of rule 23(b)(3).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company
in determining superiority, 7 courts must consider the four factors of rule 23(b)(3).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Boone v. Amazon Services, LLC
in determining superiority, 2 courts must consider the four factors of rule 23(b)(3).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.
in determining superiority, 27 courts must consider the four factors of rule 23(b)(3).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company
in determining superiority, 11 courts must consider the four factors of rule 23(b)(3).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gatchalian v. Atlantic Recovery Solutions, LLC
in determining superiority, courts 4 must consider the four factors of rule 23(b)(3).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities Litigation
The Ninth Circuit recognizes that "causation difficulties [do not] necessarily render class certification impossible.” Zinser, amendment on denial of reh’g, 273 F.3d at 1266.
cited
Cited "see"
Mark Graham v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Company
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1189 (9th Cir. 2001), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Durham v. Sachs Electric Company
See Zinser v. 11 Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir.), amended by, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 12 2001) (citing Doninger v. Pac.
cited
Cited "see"
Gunderson v. Alta Devices, Inc.
See Zinser v. 4 Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th 5 Cir. 2001) (citing Doninger v. Pac.
cited
Cited "see"
Durham v. Sachs Electric Company
See Zinser v. 16 Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir.), amended by, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 17 18 2001) (citing Doninger v. Pac.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cole v. Gene by Gene, Ltd.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 2001), amended on denial of rehearing, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing In re N. Dist. of Cal., Dalkon Shield IUD Prod.
cited
Cited "see"
Just Film, Inc. v. Sam Buono
P. 23(a); see 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).
cited
Cited "see"
Paternostro v. Choice Hotel International Services Corp.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1194-95 (9th Cir.) opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Daniel F. v. Blue Shield of California
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir,2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Etzelsberger v. Fisker Automotive, Inc.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Toyota Motor Corp. Hybrid Brake Marketing
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 258 F.3d 1180 , 1189, amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (when individual issues predominate, “the economy and efficiency of class action treatment are lost and the need for judicial supervision and the risk of confusion are magnified”) (internal quotations omitted); Feinstein v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 535 F.Supp. 595, 603-04 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (finding that when “class members whose tires had performed as warranted would have to be identified and eliminated from the action,” the action “necessarily metastasizes into millions of ind…
cited
Cited "see"
Gianino v. Alacer Corp.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Greko v. Diesel U.S.A., Inc.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir.2001) (citations omitted), amended 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Nguyen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Jones v. Corbis Corp.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir.2001), amended, by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001); see also Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 947 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. General Mills, Inc.
See Zinser v. Accu-fix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barnes v. AT & T Pension Benefit Plan-Nonbargained Program
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1188 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001); Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992). “[District courts are not only at liberty to, but must, perform a rigorous analysis to ensure that the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied, and this analysis will often, though not always, require looking behind the pleadings to issues overlapping with the merits of the underlying claims.” Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 594 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).
cited
Cited "see"
Lewis v. First American Title Insurance
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Alberghetti v. Corbis Corp.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001); see also Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 947 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Overtime Pay Litigation
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1188 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001); Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Department of Transportation
(2×)
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.2001), amended and superceded on denial of rehearing by Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that Plaintiff “bears the burden of demonstrating that [he] has met each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b)”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc.
(2×)
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Store
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Overtime Pay Litigation
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1188 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001); Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited "see"
National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1188 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001); Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Betty Dukes Patricia Surgeson Cleo Page Deborah Gunter Karen Williamson Christine Kwapnoski Edith Arana v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Betty Dukes Patricia Surgeson Cleo Page Deborah Gunter Karen Williamson Christine Kwapnoski Edith Arana v. Wal-Mart, Inc.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores
(2×)
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited "see"
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1188 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001); Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Foster v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.
This analysis is required, in part, because “the district court must determine whether variations in state law defeat predominance.” Cast ano, 84 F.3d at 750 ; see Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1189 (9th.Cir.2001), amended on denial of rehearing by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001); In re Baycol Prods.
discussed
Cited "see"
Grosz v. Boeing Co.
See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that under Rule 23, the plaintiff must show that all four of the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met and then at least one requirement of Rule 23(b)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Acosta v. Evergreen Moneysource Mortgage Company
P. 23(b)(3)(A)–(D); see also Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 26 F.3d 1180 , 1190–92 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 27 2001). 28 1 In its prior order, the court preliminarily certified the proposed class, finding it 2 initially satisfied the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and 3 superiority requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), albeit with some reservations as stated 4 above.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc.
P. 23(b)(3); see also Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1189 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc.
P. 23(b)(3); see also Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1189 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gilbert v. MoneyMutual, LLC
As the moving parties, Plaintiffs bear the burden of “demonstrating that [they have] met each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b).” Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.), amended 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (trial court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moore v. Apple Inc.
Plans & Trust Funds, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 1194 , 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 , 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551 , 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011)); see also Mazza, 666 F.3d at 588 (“‘Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a ‘rigorous analysis’ to determine whether the party seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Rule 23.’ ” (quoting Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001))).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Morris v. Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc.
See also Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1192 (9th Cir.) opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001) (“If each class member has to litigate numerous and substantial separate issues to establish his or her right to recover individually, a class action is not ‘superior.’ ”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Yahoo Mail Litigation
Plans & Trust Funds, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 1194 , 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551 , 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011)); see also Mazza, 666 F.3d at 588 (“ ‘Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a ‘rigorous analysis’ to determine whether the party seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Rule 23.’ ” (quoting Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001))).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Herskowitz v. Apple, Inc.
Plans & Trust Funds, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1184, 1194 , 185 L.Ed.2d 308 (2013) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551 , 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011)); see also Mazza, 666 F.3d at 588 (“‘Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a ‘rigorous analysis’ to determine whether the party seeking certification has met the prerequisites of Rule 23.’ ” (quoting Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 , 1186, amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001))).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wolph v. Acer America Corp.
ANALYSIS “Class certifications are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,” and a plaintiff seeking class certification bears the burden of “demonstrating that he has met each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b).” Lozano v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir.2007); see also Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180,1186 (9th Cir.), amended 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001) (trial court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
City of St. Petersburg v. Total Containment, Inc.
See, e.g., Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001); In re Northern Dist. of Cal. Dalkon Shield IUD Products Liab.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Breeden v. Benchmark Lending Group, Inc.
See, e.g., Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1190 (9th Cir. 2001) amended by 273 F.3d 1266 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd.
See e.g., Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) amended and superceded on denial of rehearing by Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001)(finding a request for a reserve fund for past and future damages, compensation for future medical treatment, other compensatory and punitive damages, and research into alternative methods for dealing with potential medical problems was injunctive in nature and “merely incidental to the primary claim for money damages”); Barnes v. The American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127, 130-31 (3d Cir.1998); Co…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cashman v. Dolce International/Hartford, Inc.
In re Dennis Greenman Securities Litigation, 829 F.2d 1539, 1545 (11th Cir.1987) (citing cases); see, e.g., Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (“Rule 23(b)(1)(A) certification requires more, however, than a risk that separate judgments would oblige the opposing party to pay damages to some class members but not to others or to pay them different amounts____Certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) is therefore not appropriate in an action for damages.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robin Zinser, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
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
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
99-17073.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 14, 2001.
273 F.3d 1266
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: E.D. California (6) · N.D. California (1)
273 F.3d 1266 (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.
No. 99-17073
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued and Submitted Oct. 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 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.
1
Opinion by Judge GOULD; Dissent by Judge B. FLETCHER.
ORDER
2
The majority opinion filed June 15, 2001, is amended as follows:
3
1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. B. 4 (Superiority, Rule 23(b)(3)(D)):
4
Of course, we do not suggest that the causation difficulties necessarily render class certification impossible.
5
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.
6
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.
7
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.