Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.

273 F.3d 1266, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 12963, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10393, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 26570, 2001 WL 1591131
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 14, 2001·No. No. 99-17073·Published·Cited by 30 cases

Opinion

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.

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

Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 273 F.3d 1266, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 12963, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10393, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 26570, 2001 WL 1591131 (9th Cir. 2001).

273 F.3d 1266 (Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gilbert v. MoneyMutual, LLC
318 F.R.D. 614 (N.D. California, 2016)
Bias v. Wells Fargo & Co.
312 F.R.D. 528 (N.D. California, 2015)
Moore v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
311 F.R.D. 590 (C.D. California, 2015)
In re NJOY, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litigation
120 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (C.D. California, 2015)
In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation
308 F.R.D. 606 (N.D. California, 2015)
Daniel F. v. Blue Shield of California
305 F.R.D. 115 (N.D. California, 2014)
In re Conagra Foods, Inc.
302 F.R.D. 537 (C.D. California, 2014)
Parra v. Bashas', Inc.
291 F.R.D. 360 (D. Arizona, 2013)
Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co.
284 F.R.D. 504 (C.D. California, 2012)
Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
281 F.R.D. 534 (C.D. California, 2012)
Pryor v. Aerotek Scientific, LLC
278 F.R.D. 516 (C.D. California, 2011)
The Apple Ipod Itunes Antitrust Litigation
796 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (N.D. California, 2011)
Wolph v. Acer America Corp.
272 F.R.D. 477 (N.D. California, 2011)
Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc.
274 F.R.D. 259 (N.D. California, 2011)
Ramirez v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
268 F.R.D. 627 (N.D. California, 2010)
City of St. Petersburg v. Total Containment, Inc.
265 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Florida, 2010)
In re First American Corp. Erisa Litigation
258 F.R.D. 610 (C.D. California, 2009)
Somers v. Apple, Inc.
258 F.R.D. 354 (N.D. California, 2009)