Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-24
Citations: 669 F. App'x 890
Docket Number: No. 14-56706
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 890–891

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.