In Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2012), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting nationwide class certification of UCL and CLRA nondisclosure claims. Here is my original post on the district court's decision.
First, the court held that under California choice-of-law rules, California law should not apply to all consumers' claims nationwide. Slip op. at 197-206.
Second, it reversed the class certification order, holding that common questions regarding unnamed class members' reliance predominated (even though reliance is, of course, not an element of a UCL claim). Id. at 207-10 (citing, among other cases, Cohen v. DirecTV, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 966 (2009)).
Although the panel ordered supplemental briefing on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), the opinion says little about that case, except to confirm that
commonality only requires a single significant question of law or fact. Even assuming arguendo that we were to agree with Honda’s “crucial question” contention, the individualized issues raised go to preponderance under Rule 23(b)(3), not to whether there are common issues under Rule 23(a)(2).
Slip op. at 195-96 (citing Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2556).
A petition for panel or en banc rehearing was filed on February 2, 2012. It was denied on March 16, 2012.