Gartin v. S & M NuTec LLC
District Court, C.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [38]
WILSON, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit is about dog treats. Plaintiff Sandy Gartin (“Gartin” or “Plaintiff’) seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all consumers who have purchased “Greenies dog treats” (“Greenies”) based on Defendant S & M NuTec LLC’s (“NuTec” or “Defendant”) alleged failure to disclose certain dangers associated with Greenies. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on November 3, 2006. Because Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- In re Conagra Foods, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2014
- Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2012
- Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Wiener v. Dannon Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2009
- Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2012
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.