Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that manifestation of a defect is not a prerequisite to class certification, id. at 1173 — a holding consistent with California law as explicated in Hicks and American Honda Motor Co. — it had no occasion to consider whether, in addition to proof of an alleged common defect and defendant’s refusal to honor its warranty to repair that defect, plaintiffs also had to adduce proof — under California law — that it was substantially certain that the alleged defect would cause a malfunction during the future useful life of the class vehicles in order to show predominance. Relying heavily on American Honda, defendants contend that although this question goes to the merits of plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty claim, it overlaps with the predominance inquiry. Compare Wolin, 617 F.3d at 1173 (<HOLDING>). American Honda, however, appears to have 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that erisa preempts a plaintiffs claims for violation of the state insurance code and consumer protection act (B) holding that common questions predominated with respect to plaintiffs claims under state consumer protection laws because the merits of the claims did not overlap with the predominance inquiry (C) holding that the circuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the merits of plaintiffs claims are inescapably intertwined with a review of the procedures and merits surrounding the faas order (D) holding that rookerfeldman did not bar the plaintiffs federal action where a pennsylvania state court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs petition for review of an agencys decision for failure to comply with the pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure since the extent of the plaintiffs compliance with those rules had no bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs constitutional claims (E) holding that state consumer protection laws do not conflict with 47 usc  201 and 202
Output (English): holding that rookerfeldman did not bar the plaintiffs federal action where a pennsylvania state court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs petition for review of an agencys decision for failure to comply with the pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure since the extent of the plaintiffs compliance with those rules had no bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs constitutional claims