Kiran Kaur v. Things Remembered, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Kiran Kaur v. Things Remembered, Inc.

829 F.3d 1117, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13265, 2016 WL 3917869

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 2016

Docket16-80060

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 829 F.3d 1117 (Kiran Kaur v. Things Remembered, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kiran Kaur v. Things Remembered, Inc., 829 F.3d 1117, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13265, 2016 WL 3917869 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition is granted. The reply has been filed.

The court, in its discretion, grants the petition for permission to appeal the district court’s April 20, 2016 order denying class action certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam). Within 14 days after the date of this order, petitioner shall perfect the appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d).

In addition to all other issues the parties may wish to raise in this appeal, the parties shall brief the issue of whether the district court should have considered less drastic alternatives before denying class certification based on concerns with the vigor of class counsel’s representation. See, e.g., Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc., 513 F.3d 1314, 1323-24 (11th Cir.2008) (“In the event that class counsel does act improperly, the ordinary remedy is disciplinary action against the lawyer and remedial notice to class members, not denial of class certification.”) (internal citation omitted).

The court sua sponte grants any individual or entity leave under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) to file an amicus curiae brief addressing the above-stated issue in this appeal. The brief(s) shall comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(c) and (d); the due dates are governed by Rule 29(e).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition is granted. The reply has been filed.

The court, in its discretion, grants the petition for permission to appeal the district court’s April 20, 2016 order denying class action certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam). Within 14 days after the date of this order, petitioner shall perfect the appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d).

In addition to all other issues the parties may wish to raise in this appeal, the parties shall brief the issue of whether the district court should have considered less drastic alternatives before denying class certification based on concerns with the vigor of class counsel’s representation. See, e.g., Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc., 513 F.3d 1314, 1323-24 (11th Cir.2008) (“In the event that class counsel does act improperly, the ordinary remedy is disciplinary action against the lawyer and remedial notice to class members, not denial of class certification.”) (internal citation omitted).

The court sua sponte grants any individual or entity leave under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) to file an amicus curiae brief addressing the above-stated issue in this appeal. The brief(s) shall comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(c) and (d); the due dates are governed by Rule 29(e).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

829 F.3d 1117, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13265, 2016 WL 3917869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiran-kaur-v-things-remembered-inc-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack