Sonia Newman v. Clorox Company
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (magistrate judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAWNDEE HARTLESS, on Behalf of No. 11-55136 Herself and All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02705-CAB Plaintiff - Appellee, MEMORANDUM * v.
CLOROX COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee. _______________________
SONIA NEWMAN,
Objector-Appellant.
SHAWNDEE HARTLESS, on Behalf of No. 11-55150 Herself and All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02705-CAB Plaintiff - Appellee, v.
CLOROX COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. _____________________
OMAR RIVERO,
Objector - Appellant.
SHAWNDEE HARTLESS, on Behalf of No. 11-55189 Herself and All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02705-CAB Plaintiff - Appellee, v.
CLOROX COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee. ____________________ SAM P. CANNATA, Objector - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 10, 2012 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
2 Objectors Sonia Newman, Omar Rivero, and Sam P. Cannata appeal the district court’s class certification in this class action brought by lead Plaintiff Shawndee Hartless against Defendant Clorox Company. The district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the settlement class. See Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 536 F.3d 975, 977–78 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating the standard of review). On this record, the court was not required to divide the nationwide class into sub-classes, as the Objectors wish.
AFFIRMED.