Legal Opinion
Estakhrian v. Obenstine
District Court, C.D. California
Decided February 4, 2017No. Case No. CV 11-3480 FMO (CWx)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Re: Motion for Class Certification
The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 424, “Motion”), the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001), and concludes as follows.
INTRODUCTION
The instant matter arises out of a class action that was litigated in Nevada state court, Daniel Watt, et al.…
2Cases cited58 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Caudle v. AAC Holdings, Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2021