Class Action Certificate

9th Circuit: "evidentiary proof" in support of class action certification need not be "admissible evidence."

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that evidence offered in support of class certification need not meet standards for admissibility at trial.  In a published opinionSali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, No 15-56460 (9th Cir. May 3, 2018), the panel reversed and remanded the district court’s determination that plaintiffs failed to satisfy typicality, adequacy, and predominance. 

Impact Fund and allies file amicus brief in support of rehearing in Ahearn v. Hyundai.

As explained in the amicus brief, that decision was an unwarranted departure from well-established precedent that differences between state consumer protection laws do not defeat predominance of common questions as to the defendant’s uniform misconduct. This precedent has facilitated nationwide class action settlements both within the Ninth Circuit and sister circuits for years. As the Impact Fund and their fellow amici explained, “Litigation is costly and time-consuming for plaintiffs, defendants, and the court system alike,” which has led to a “strong judicial policy” in favor of settlements. Contravening this policy, the divided majority panel “added requirements and shifted burdens” that would unfortunately operate to prevent settlement of nationwide claims.

Ninth Circuit: "Fortuitous Non-Injury" Does Not Defeat Class Certification

The recent appellate decision affirming class certification, Ruiz Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc.No. 15-35615 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016), written by Judge Milan Smith, skillfully addresses the issues of informational injury, non-injured class members, class definition, and aggregate damages while scrupulously declining defendant's invitation to engage the underlying merits.