U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2007

Azizian v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 28, 2007

243 F. App'x 311

Counsel

John W. Allured, Law Offices of John W. Allured, Francis 0. Scarpulla, Esq., Craig C. Corbitt, Esq., Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, John H. Boone, Esq., Law Office of John H. Boone, Josef D. Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Terry Gross, Esq., Gross & Belsky LLP, Guido Saveri, Esq., Saveri & Saveri Inc., Law Firm of Joseph M. Alioto, Ben Furth, Esq., Furth Firm, Mary L. Needham, Esq., Law Offices of Mary L. Needham, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, John J. Pentz, Class Action Fairness Group, Maynard, MA, Michael A. Caddell, Esq., Caddell & Chapman, Houston, TX, Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq., Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, W. Timothy Needham, Janssen Malloy Needham, Eureka, CA, J. Garrett Kendrick, Esq., Kendrick & Nutley, Beverly Hills, CA, John L. Burris, Esq., Law Offices of John L. Burris Airport Corporate Center, Oakland, CA, Alan R. Plutzik, Esq., Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birhaeuser LLP, Angelina Grace, Esq., Walnut Creek, CA, Michael J. Flannery, David Danis Lav? Firm PC, St. Louis, MO, Robert Diskint, Esq., Critchlow & Diskint, San Rafael, CA, Susan G. Taylor, Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, Daniel J. Mogin, Esq., Mogin Law Firm PC, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees., William F. Abbott, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, Kent F. Brooks, Dallas, TX, for Appellant., Andrew James Kopp, Esq., Law Office of Andrew J. Kopp, Oakland, CA, Steven B. Witman, Esq., Law Offices of Steven B. Witman, Metairie, LA, for Intervenors-Appellees., Phillip Aaron Proger, Esq., Jones Day, Matthew W. Hoffman, Esq., Elizabeth Runyan Geise, Esq., Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC, Amy Anne Stathos, Esq., Jones Day, Los Angeles, CA, Peter J. Venaglia, Esq., Dornbush Mensch Mandelstam & Schaeffer, Bruce A. Colbath, Esq., Weil, Gotshall and Manges, LLP, Frederic W. Yerman, Esq., Kaye Scholer, LLP, New York, NY, Charles Berwanger, Esq., Gordon & Rees, LLP, San Diego, CA, Ronald J. Dolan, Esq., St Louis, MO, Larry Steven Gangnes, Esq., Lane Powell, PC, Seattle, WA, Bruce H. Jackson, Esq., Baker & McKenzie, Terri Garland, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Bingham McCutchen, LLP, Marta Miyar, Esq., George Charles Nierlich, Esq., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Jeffrey Knowles, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass, LLP, Michael W. Bien, Esq., Rosen Bien & Asaro, LLP, James T. Fousekis, Esq., DLA Piper Rudniek Gray Cary, US LLP, Anita Fern Stork, Esq., Cooley Godward LLP, Samuel R. Miller, Esq., Folger Levin & Kahn, LLP, Marlene J. Williams, Esq., Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, James L. McGinnis, Esq., Gary L. Hailing, Esq., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, J. Thomas Rosch, Esq., Latham & Watkins, LLP, Townsend & Townsend & Crew, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Kamela Wilkinson appeals from the district court’s certification of a nationwide class of consumers of department store cosmetics, represented by Plaintiffs-Appellees, and approval of a final settlement of their antitrust claims against Defendants-Appellees. Wilkinson also objects to the district court’s referral of certain matters to a special master without the consent of unnamed class members and to the district court’s refusal to renotice the class. We affirm.

Our review of “a district court’s decision regarding class certification” is “ ‘very limited.’ ” Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 474 F.3d 1214, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 867 (9th Cir. 2001)). We will reverse certification “only upon a strong showing that the district court’s decision was a clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, we review a district court’s approval of a class action settlement for a “clear abuse of discretion.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 960 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). We decline to find that the dis*313triet court clearly abused its discretion in certifying the class and granting final approval to the settlement.

We also decline to find that the district court abused its discretion by referring certain matters to a special master without the consent of unnamed class members. See Burlington N.R.R. Co. v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 934 F.2d 1064, 1071 (9th Cir. 1991).

Finally, we decline to find that the district court erred by refusing to renotice the class. See Churchill Village, LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004).

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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