• Enter your email address:

October 2020

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

« New Jersey Supreme Court invalidates "no class action" arbitration provision: Muhammad v. County Bank | Main | Petition for review filed in Pfizer v. Superior Court »

Friday, August 11, 2006



It warrants publication only to provide an example of where a trial court can deny certification in a Sav-on type situation. Although Sav-on, properly understood, already left the trial court with that discretion. Less experienced judges would often buy the argument from experienced (and clever) class action plaintiff's counsel that "Sav-On says you have to certify an exemption class action" or that "Sav-On says that exemption class actions are all good candidates for certification." Dunbar provides a counter-example. I agree, generally, though that Dunbar does not establish any new principle that is going to change class action law.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2020 Supreme Court Calendar



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

  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2020
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

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

  • StatCounter