Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01901/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01901-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332pl Diversity-Product Liability

---

, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

, , FILED 

MAY 2 4 2016 

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

7 

8 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

9 

10 CYNTIDA L. CZUCHAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

11 situated, et aI., 

Plaintiffs, 

12 

vs. 

13 

CONAIR CORPORATION, a Delaware 

14 corporation, 

Defendant. 

15 

16 

17 

Case No.: 13-cv-1901-BEN (RBB) 

PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE 

ORDER RECONSIDERING 

AND DECERTIFYING 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS 

18 A Pre-Trial Conference was held on May 20,2016. At the hearing, the Court 

19 agreed to review its class certification rulings and clarify any ambiguities. The Court 

20 finds no ambiguities but now reconsiders its order certifying a nationwide class for 

21 injunctive relief. 

22 On November 12,2015, the Court certified a nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(2) 

23 and (b)(3) for implied warranty claims under common law and the Magnuson-Moss 

24 Warranty Act. The Court also certified two state subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3): 

25 (a) a California subclass for claims under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, 

26 Unfair Competition Law, and Song-Beverly Warranty Act; and (b) a New York subclass 

27 for a claim under New York General Business Law § 349. Thereafter, Defendant moved 

28 to decertify the Rule 23(b)(3) nationwide class. That motion was granted. Common 

13cv1901-BEN 

Case 3:13-cv-01901-BEN-RBB Document 280 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 2
• • 

1 questions do not predominate throughout the nationwide class because of the material 

2 differences in state laws. However, Defendant did not raise any arguments to decertify 

3 the nationwide class for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). On the basis of 

4 Defendant's silence, the Court denied the motion as to the Rule 23(b)(2) class. 

5 The Court now reconsiders its Order declining to decertify the Rule 23(b )(2) 

6 nationwide injunctive relief class. See Order (dated Mar. 30,2016), at 8 & n.5. Because 

7 the nationwide class action for monetary relief has been decertified, there remains no 

8 substantive legal theory upon which to base nationwide injunctive relief. Generally, 

9 certification under Rule 23(b )(2) is not appropriate where the relief relates 

10 predominantly to money damages. Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1255 (9th Cir. 

11 1990). Common issues need not predominate for certification under Rule 23(b )(2). 

12 Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998). But for a injunctive relief class, 

13 there must be clear legal violation alleged. See e.g. Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 

14 919 F.2d 549,558 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class certified based 

15 on allegations that INS engaged in persistent national pattern of misconduct violating 

16 rights of aliens). In this case, the predominant relief requested in each jurisdiction 

17 relates to money damages, and there is no nationwide substantive legal theory class to 

18 support a nationwide class for injunctive relief. Therefore, the Court reconsiders its 

19 earlier order and now decertifies the Rule 23(b )(2) nationwide class for injunctive relief. 

20 CONCLUSION 

21 Trial is set for Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. Motions in limine, if 

22 any, shall be filed by August 22,2016. 

23 IT I ORDERED. 

24 Dated: {; ,2016 

25 

26 

27 

28 

13cv1901-BEN 

Case 3:13-cv-01901-BEN-RBB Document 280 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 2