As I mentioned in this blog post, rehearing was denied in Mazza on March 16, 2012.
Incidentally, on March 6, 2012, Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California issued a very interesting order construing Mazza. Bruno v. Quten Research Inst., LLC, ___ F.R.D. ___, 2011 WL 5592880, *15-*26 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011). (For some reason, Westlaw appended the March 2012 order to the end of an earlier order and gave them both the same cite. The new order starts at page *15.)
Judge Carter denied the defendants' motion to decertify the nationwide class and/or for reconsideration of the class certification order based on Mazza:
Defendants' argument fails because Mazza is not a material change in the law, given that: (1) Mazza did not and could not change state substantive law articulated by the California Supreme Court; (2) Mazza did not and could not overrule Ninth Circuit precedent interpreting state law; and (3) Defendants' interpretation of Mazza contradicts the express purpose of the Class Action Fairness Act. Alternatively, Mazza is distinguishable from the present case because Defendants' briefing in the prior motion differs from that of the defendants in Mazza and the facts of this case differ from those in Mazza.
Id. at *15 (emphasis in original). In short, Judge Carter recognized what many commentators have also perceived: Mazza misapplied California choice-of-law rules. The complete order is worth a careful read.