Last Wednesday, July 11, 2007, the Supreme Court denied the multiple requests to depublish Walsh v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc., 148 Cal.App.4th 1440 (2007) (one of which was filed by yours truly).
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
« "Appeal Courts Are Publishing More Cases" | Main | "Consumer Class Actions Usurping Personal Injury Claims" »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345172b069e200e008da2ac58834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Depublication requests denied: Walsh v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc.:
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
So does this now mean that you CAN use predominant individualized affirmative defenses to defeat class cert?
Posted by: tommyk | Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 04:50 PM
Of course not. Not even the Walsh court (trial or appellate) interpreted the law that way. That's the whole point; the sentence about affirmative defenses presents a misleading impression about what the law is, especially if taken out of context. Moreover, as I'm sure you are well aware as an experienced attorney, summary denials by the Supreme Court have no precedential value and may not be cited as suggesting anything one way or another about the merits of the issues raised.
Posted by: Kimberly A. Kralowec | Friday, July 20, 2007 at 09:57 AM