Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0890-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nancy VITOLO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLOOMINGDALE’S, INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-56706
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted October 6, 2016 Pasadena, California
    Filed October 24, 2016
    
      Monica Balderrama, G. Arthur Meneses, Esquire, Initiative Legal Group APC, Glenn A. Danas, Attorney, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    John S. Curtis, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Julia Azrael, North Hollywood, CA, David E. Martin, Senior Counsel, Catherine Sison, Senior Counsel, Macy’s, Inc., Bridgeton, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand to the district court for further proceedings in light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 327 P.3d 129 (2014), the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015), and the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Perez v. U-Haul Co. of California, 3 Cal. App.5th 408, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 (2016).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.