Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.

Zinser v. Accufix Rsch. Inst., Inc., 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 2001-12-14
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

trial court must conduct a “rigorous analysis” to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 30 opinions

ZINSER v. ACCUFIX RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.,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, Ninth Circuit.

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.Page 1267