Legal Opinion
Akkerman v. MECTA CORP., INC.
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 27, 2007No. B192109PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
The homonym “suit” can mean a legal action or apparel. Though quite dissimilar, the two share one important attribute in class actions. One size does not fit all.
Plaintiff Atze Akkerman appeals an order denying his motion for class certification. He filed an action under the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200, 17500) 1 for deceptive advertising against Mecta Corporation, Inc. (Mecta), the manufacturer of an electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) machine. The trial court found that Akkerman did not establish the elements for class certification; did not…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- CALIFORNIANS FOR DISAB. RIGHTS v. Mervyn'sCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Martin v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re Vioxx Class CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Ghazaryan v. Diva Limousine, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Cohen v. DirecTV, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Miller v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Marler v. JohansingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.