January 2024

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      

« "Welcome to Food Court" | Main | New Ninth Circuit CAFA opinion: Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services NA LLC »

Tuesday, March 12, 2013



It is binding precedent in all California federal courts though. So, even if you believe it is a misinterpretation of Dukes (which I don't), it is the law of the land now (at least this land where we work).

Kimberly A. Kralowec

I don't disagree that it will be cited as such in many cases, but the argument that it misinterpreted Dukes can still be advanced, which will undermine its value as a precedent over time. Also, given the loose language used in that paragraph, in many cases it will be distinguishable.

This blog is not a brief filed in a court. If I think that an opinion is wrongly decided, I will certainly point it out, especially if the opinion is a "binding precedent." There is little reason to point out errors in unpublished or non-precedential rulings.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

On September 3, 2013, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its opinion in this case and issued a new, modified opinion. The new opinion entirely omitted the paragraph on Dukes quoted above.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2023 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
    © 2003-2022
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

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

  • StatCounter