Case ID: f-appx_399/html/0246-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hoany G. CORTEZ, an individual, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. and Saia Motor Freight Line, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-56356.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 6, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 8, 2010.
    Gregg A. Farley, Esquire, Law Offices of Gregg A. Farley, Los Angeles, CA, Neal J. Fialkow, Esquire, Neal J. Fialkow Law Offices, Pasadena, CA, Sahag Majarían, Esquire, Law Offices Sahag Majarían, II, Tarzana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jesse E.M. Randolph, Esquire, Bryan Cave, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court erred in failing to explain its reasons for denying the unopposed class-certification motion of plaintiff Hoany G. Cortez (“Cortez”). The district court’s conclusory assertion that this case presents “no common questions” of law or fact under Rule 23(a) falls far short of the “rigorous analysis” required in the class-certification context. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a); Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). Nor is this a case where the “issues [a]re so plain and the analytical framework so clear that the record,” standing alone, enables effective appellate review. Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir.2005). Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the record suggests a number of possible common issues, such as whether defendant Saia Motor Freight Line, LLC maintains an official policy of refusing to reimburse workers for required footwear and whether federal OSHA regulations legitimize such a policy. The district court also omitted any mention of the remaining Rule 23(a) factors and did not discuss any of the prongs of Rule 23(b). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)-(b).

The dearth of substantive analysis in the district court’s March 24, 2008 hearing and March 28, 2008 order prevents this court from engaging in “meaningful appellate review” and requires that we vacate the decision and remand for reconsideration of Cortez’s motion. See Narcuz v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC, 591 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir.2010). Given the circumstances of this case, we are not convinced that it is necessary to reassign this case to a different judge on remand. See United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam).

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We express no view on the merits of the underlying certification motion.