Robin Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.
Robin Zinser, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., Formerly D.B.A. As Tplc, Inc., and Telectronics Pacing Systems, Now Known as Tplc Holdings, Inc., a Colorado Corporation Pacific Dunlop Limited, and Nucleus Limited Nucleus Limited
Opinion
273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001)
ROBIN ZINSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACCUFIX RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC., formerly d.b.a. as TPLC, INC., and TELECTRONICS PACING SYSTEMS, now known as TPLC HOLDINGS, INC., a Colorado corporation; PACIFIC DUNLOP LIMITED, and NUCLEUS LIMITED; NUCLEUS LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-17073
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued and Submitted Oct. 30, 2000. Filed June 15, 2001. Amended December 14, 2001,
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, James M. Finberg (argued), Melanie M. Piech, and Scott P. Nealey, Leiff, Cabraser, Hiemann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, California; C. Brooks Cutter, Friedman, Callard, Cutter & Panneton, Sacramento, California; Robert Hollingsworth, Cors & Bassett, Cincinnati, Ohio, for the plaintiff-appellant.
Charles F. Preuss, Thomas J. Pulliam, Jr., and Catherine W. Levin, Preuss, Walker & Shanagher, LLP, San Francisco, California; Charles P. Goodell, Jr. (argued), Richard M. Barnes, and Ian Gallacher, Goodell, Devries, Leech & Gray, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; John M. LaPlante, Gregory J. Fisher, Edson & LaPlante, Sacramento, California; Patrick S. Coffey, Scott J. Fisher (argued), Gardner, Carton & Douglass, Chicago, Illinois; Robert S. Epstein, Epstein, Englert, Staley & Coffey, San Francisco, California, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-0414-GEB DAD.
Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.
1
Opinion by Judge GOULD; Dissent by Judge B. FLETCHER.
ORDER 2
The majority opinion filed June 15, 2001, is amended as follows:
3
1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. B. 4 (Superiority, Rule 23(b)(3)(D)):
4
Of course, we do not suggest that the causation difficulties necessarily render class certification impossible.
5
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.
6
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.
7
The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 30 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.