CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    44 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 1210
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

August 2015

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 31          

« One more time: U.S. Supreme Court expected to announce vote in Dukes v. Wal-Mart today | Main | Supreme Court UCL restitution decision: Pineda v. Bank of America »

Monday, December 06, 2010

Comments

rb

Suspect I know the answer of the majority:

1. Plaintiffs did not make out a sufficiently common, typical, ascertainable class to warrant certification in the first place.

2. There is no right to restitution under a (b)(2) certification.

If I had to bet, I would bet the first is going to be the focus of the majority and its results far worse than the second. Assume a broad based opinion that will make class certification much more difficult, particularly in discrimination cases.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2015 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2015
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad