• The Complex Litigator Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • CLASS RE-ACTION PODCAST
  • MCLE
Menu

The Complex Litigator

Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number
a California-centric collection of comments and resources about complex litigation and class action practice

The Complex Litigator

  • The Complex Litigator Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • CLASS RE-ACTION PODCAST
  • MCLE

Ninth Circuit begins to define scope of Mazza in Ruiz Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc.

September 28, 2016 H. Scott Leviant

In Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit Rule 23 predominance was defeated where many (or even most) class members “were never exposed to the allegedly misleading advertisements” (666 F.3d at 597) because the defendant subjected only a small segment of an expansive class of car buyers to misleading material as part of a “very limited” advertising campaign (id. at 595).  This decision raised questions about how federal courts in the Ninth Circuit would actually evaluate UCL claims when faced with reconciling In re Tobacco II and Mazza.  In Ruiz Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc. (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016), a wage & hour suit in which the District Court certified a class, the Ninth Circuit analyzed Mazza in a manner demonstrating that it may be constrained in its application moving forward.

The defendant focused a substantial part of its challenge to the District Court's certification order on the notion that the class was drawn too broadly, arguing that certain class members were not injured due to the omission of information that, under plaintiff's theory, was improperly withheld from them, because they were not looking for work, would not have been hired, or for other individual reasons. The Court was not persuaded, saying that "such fortuitous non-injury to a subset of class members does not necessarily defeat certification of the entire class, particularly as the district court is well situated to winnow out those non-injured members at the damages phase of the litigation, or to refine the class definition." Slip op., at 18.  The Court then contrasted the possibility that some class members suffered no injury from the omission with Mazza:

This stands in contrast to the situation in Mazza, where many class members were not injured by virtue of the fact that they “were never exposed to the allegedly misleading advertisements.” 666 F.3d at 597. In Mazza, the defendant subjected only a small segment of an expansive class of car buyers to misleading material as part of a “very limited” advertising campaign. Id. at 595. Under those circumstances, we found that Rule 23 predominance was defeated, since “it was unreasonable to assume that all class members purchasing cars had seen the potentially misleading ads.” Id. at 596. That is not the situation here, where the existence of a common policy or practice, if proven, is evidence that the class as a whole was exposed to purportedly misleading omissions about H-2A jobs.

Slip op., at 18-19. The Court then discussed the related argument that the class was too broadly drawn.  The Ninth Circuit held that this potential flaw was not fatal:

Mercer’s dispute merely reflects the existence of contrasting litigation positions on the proper scope of liability, and a merits issue that the district court will later resolve concerning the breadth of Mercer’s disclosure duty over time.

Slip op., at 20.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that there was "a reasonably close fit with Plaintiffs’ theory of liability, such that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is maintained."  Slip op., at 22.  The Court also affirmed the certification of an equal pay subclass.

Source: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opi...

By H. Scott Leviant. Editor and site author H. Scott Leviant can be found on Google+, Twitter and LinkedIn, among other places.

In Class Actions: New Opinions, Civil Procedure: Federal, Class Actions: Certification, Class Actions: Class Definitions, Class Actions: Commonality, Class Actions: Predominance, Class Actions: Wage & Hour Tags Wage & Hour, Certification, Predominance, Mazza
← Law-less Friday: San Diego's arbitrary and capricious six-foot ruleIn Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of a putative consumer class action →

Subscribe to The Complex Litigator RSS feed.

Troester v. Starbucks Corporation Briefs/Links


The Complex Litigator Home
Castillo v. Glenair, Inc. examines a novel joint employer question
about 5 days ago
Troester v. Starbucks set for oral argument before California Supreme Court
about 2 weeks ago
Troester v. Starbucks page updated with additional briefs
about 3 weeks ago
We're back, baby!
about 3 weeks ago
JOB OPPORTUNITY: wage and hour attorneys with roughly three to six years experience
about 7 months ago
California Supreme Court agreed to hear certified question about employer exit searches in Frlekin v. Apple
about 7 months ago
LAW-LESS FRIDAY: Conflicting signals for the health of the legal job market
about 7 months ago
Law-less Friday: Treat those summer associates right!
about 7 months ago
In Lambert v. Nutraceutical Corp., the Ninth Circuit examines Rule 23(f) petitions
about 7 months ago
Just reading Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equipment Company should earn you CLE credit for appellate specialization
about 7 months ago

  • Castillo v. Glenair, Inc. examines a novel joint employer question https://t.co/Hh17O27bnX
    about 5 days ago
  • Troester v. Starbucks set for oral argument before California Supreme Court https://t.co/bdNQzRbujb
    about 2 weeks ago
  • We're back, baby! https://t.co/vjybgq3ueK
    about 3 weeks ago
  • I just can’t believe that Google wants to honor THIS. What message are they trying to send? This could really be tr… https://t.co/p6xRas1oph
    about 5 months ago


  • April 2018 (3)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • September 2017 (6)
  • August 2017 (3)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (2)
  • January 2017 (1)
  • December 2016 (5)
  • November 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (3)
  • September 2016 (7)
  • August 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (2)
  • April 2016 (3)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (2)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (1)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (3)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • September 2014 (2)
  • August 2014 (4)
  • June 2014 (3)
  • May 2014 (3)
  • April 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (8)
  • January 2014 (4)
  • December 2013 (4)
  • November 2013 (3)
  • October 2013 (3)
  • September 2013 (6)
  • August 2013 (2)
  • July 2013 (4)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (6)
  • March 2013 (13)
  • February 2013 (7)
  • January 2013 (3)
  • December 2012 (7)
  • November 2012 (5)
  • October 2012 (5)
  • September 2012 (5)
  • August 2012 (4)
  • July 2012 (1)
  • June 2012 (5)
  • May 2012 (5)
  • April 2012 (9)
  • March 2012 (2)
  • February 2012 (7)
  • January 2012 (13)
  • December 2011 (2)
  • November 2011 (4)
  • October 2011 (4)
  • September 2011 (3)
  • August 2011 (4)
  • July 2011 (7)
  • June 2011 (9)
  • May 2011 (7)
  • April 2011 (19)
  • March 2011 (6)
  • February 2011 (9)
  • January 2011 (15)
  • December 2010 (16)
  • November 2010 (12)
  • October 2010 (14)
  • September 2010 (14)
  • August 2010 (18)
  • July 2010 (16)
  • June 2010 (11)
  • May 2010 (15)
  • April 2010 (25)
  • March 2010 (19)
  • February 2010 (12)
  • January 2010 (17)
  • December 2009 (11)
  • November 2009 (16)
  • October 2009 (19)
  • September 2009 (21)
  • August 2009 (16)
  • July 2009 (16)
  • June 2009 (16)
  • May 2009 (21)
  • April 2009 (13)
  • March 2009 (17)
  • February 2009 (21)
  • January 2009 (22)
  • December 2008 (14)
  • November 2008 (11)
  • October 2008 (12)
  • September 2008 (12)
  • August 2008 (19)
  • July 2008 (26)
  • June 2008 (28)
  • May 2008 (36)
  • April 2008 (30)
  • March 2008 (3)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

note: although this site contains no offers to provide legal services, is not intended as such, and is not such an offer, some jurisdictions may nevertheless assert that this site constitutes an advertisement by an attorney.  please be aware of the possibility of such a classification as you view this site.

powered by squarespace