Cases

ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION CHARLES R. BREYER, United States District Judge. This case has traveled a long road. Plaintiffs have spent over twelve years pursuing their claims that Wal-Mart discriminated against them and other women in making pay and promotion decisions. For a while, they succeeded in prosecuting the suit as a class action encompassing the claims of some 1.5 million women around t

659 F.3d 801 (2011) Betty DUKES; Patricia Surgeson; Edith Arana; Karen Williamson; Deborah Gunter; Christine Kwapnoski; Cleo Page, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Betty Dukes; Patricia Surgeson; Edith Arana; Karen Williamson; Deborah Gunter; Christine Kwapnoski; Cleo Page, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 04-16688, 04-16720.

ORDER We remand to the district court to comply with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011).

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, dissenting: Maybe there’d be no difference between 500 employees and 500,000 employees if they all had similar jobs, worked at the same half-billion square foot store and were supervised by the same managers. But the half-million members of the majority’s approved class held a multitude of jobs, at different levels of Wal-Mart’s hierarchy, for variable lengths of time, in 3,400 stores, spr

603 F.3d 571 (2010) Betty DUKES; Patricia Surgeson; Edith Arana; Karen Williamson; Deborah Gunter; Christine Kwapnoski; Cleo Page, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Nos. 04-16688, 04-16720. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submit

17 So.3d 1235 (2009) DUKES v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. No. 3D09-986. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. September 1, 2009. Decision without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION JENKINS, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...............................................................141 LEGAL STANDARD............................................................143 ANALYSIS.....................................................................14

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. The class in this case, I agree with the Court, should not have been certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The plaintiffs, alleging discrimination in violation

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Question I presented by the petition. In addition to Question I, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: “Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a).” Same case below, 603 F.3d 571.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. Class action certification violates the Rule 23 class action certification criteria and deprives Wal-Mart of due process of law. Class actions need special justification because they are “an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.”1

RILEY, Chief Judge. Owners of shares of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) sued directors and officers of the corporation, accusing them of breaking state and federal law by permitting and then covering up pervasive bribery committed on behalf of Wal-Mart’s Mexican subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico (Wal-Mex). Because the shareholders sought to enforce rights belonging to Wal-Mart, Fe

ORDER Susan 0. Hickey, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for Losses Sustained by the Company, Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(1) and 12(H)(3), or Alternatively, Rule 12(C). ECF No. 303. Plaintiff, City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System (“PGERS”), has filed a response in opposition to the motion. ECF No.. 305. Defendants have filed a reply

MEMORANDUM Sue L. Robinson, United States District Judge At Wilmington this 24th day of February, 2016, having reviewed defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Michael T. Duke’s (“WalMart”) motion to quash, and the papers submitted in connection therewith, the court issues its decision based on the following analysis: 1. Background. This ease relates to two subpoenas (“the Subpoenas”) iss

WESLEY, Circuit Judge. Appellants challenge the district court’s approval of a class action settlement, including the award of attorneys’ fees. The class action involved approximately five million merchants and alleged, inter alia, that defendants Visa U.S.A. Inc. and MasterCard International Inc. tied merchant use of defendants’ debit products to use of defendants’ credit cards, in violation of the

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHELSEA HAMILTON; ALYSSA No. 19-56161 HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly D.C. Nos. situated, 5:17-cv-01415- Plaintiffs-Appellants, AB-KK 5:17-cv-01485- v. AB-KK WAL-MART STORES, INC., a corporation; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC

ORDER ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL PICKERING, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Motion for New Trial on Damages or in the Alternative on All Issues filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and joined by the Intervenor. The Court, having reviewed the motion, the briefs of the parties, the authorities cited, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows, to-wit;

SHORTESS, Judge. Margaret Duke (plaintiff) brought suit to recover worker’s compensation benefits for injuries she sustained during the course and scope of her employment with Wal-Mart, defendant. After a trial on the merits, the trial judge denied plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff perfected an appeal to this court urging two assignments of error: The Trial Judge erred in concluding that Mrs. Duke is

SECTION: “G”(4) ORDER NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In this litigation, Plaintiff Ravion Fair-ley (“Plaintiff’) alleges that her former employer, Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Defendant”) discriminated against her based on her gender in violation of Title VII. Before the Court is Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgment.”1 Havin