U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2001

Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided December 14, 2001 · Fletcher, Gould, Scannlain

273 F.3d 1266; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 12963; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10393; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 26570; 2001 WL 1591131 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Elizabeth J. Cabraser, James M. Fin-berg (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 Gal-lacher, Goodell, Devries, Leech & Gray, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; John M. La-Plante, Gregory J. Fisher, Edson & La-Plante, 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.

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Moore v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2015)
Parra v. Bashas', Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2013)
In re Infineon Technologies AG Securities Litigation (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2009)
Gilbert v. MoneyMutual, LLC (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2016)
In re Conagra Foods, Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2015)
In re NJOY, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litigation (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2015)
In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2015)
Bias v. Wells Fargo & Co. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2015)
In re Conagra Foods, Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2014)
Daniel F. v. Blue Shield of California (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2014)
Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2012)
Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2012)
The Apple Ipod Itunes Antitrust Litigation (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2011)
Wolph v. Acer America Corp. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2011)
Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2011)
In re Aftermarket Automotive Lighting Products Antitrust Litigation (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2011)
Pryor v. Aerotek Scientific, LLC (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2011)
City of St. Petersburg v. Total Containment, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2010)
Ramirez v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2010)
Somers v. Apple, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2009)
In re First American Corp. Erisa Litigation (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2009)
Kamar v. Radio Shack Corp. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2008)
Gartin v. S & M NuTec LLC (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2007)
Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network v. City of Los Angeles (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2007)
Amone v. Aveiro (United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by Judge GOULD; Dissent by Judge B. FLETCHER.

ORDER

The majority opinion filed June 15, 2001, is amended as follows:

1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. B. 4 (Superiority, Rule 23(b)(3)(D)):

Of course, we do not suggest that the causation difficulties necessarily render class certification impossible.

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.

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.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.