Victorino v. FCA US LLC, 3:16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180502h35
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 01, 2018
Latest Update: May 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING FCA US LLC'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND BY INTERLINEATION ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [Dkt. No. 234.] GONZALO P. CURIEL , District Judge . On April 30, 2018, Defendant FCA US LLC ("Defendant") filed an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Amend by Interlineation its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF #234]. After reviewing the ex parte motion, and Plaintiffs' opposition, and finding good ca
Summary: ORDER GRANTING FCA US LLC'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND BY INTERLINEATION ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION [Dkt. No. 234.] GONZALO P. CURIEL , District Judge . On April 30, 2018, Defendant FCA US LLC ("Defendant") filed an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Amend by Interlineation its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF #234]. After reviewing the ex parte motion, and Plaintiffs' opposition, and finding good cau..
More
ORDER GRANTING FCA US LLC'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND BY INTERLINEATION ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
[Dkt. No. 234.]
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
On April 30, 2018, Defendant FCA US LLC ("Defendant") filed an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Amend by Interlineation its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF #234]. After reviewing the ex parte motion, and Plaintiffs' opposition, and finding good cause therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's ex parte motion. Defendant's Exhibit S is hereby deemed submitted, and Defendant's Opposition (ECF #229) is hereby deemed amended so that the following text found on page 17, lines 16-20 of the Opposition:
"Furthermore, and in any event, this Court must apply the implied warranty laws of 50 different jurisdictions for a nationwide implied warranty class, and the significant differences in these laws make clear that predominance is lacking for a nationwide class. See FCA US's Motion for Application of Laws of 50 States, filed simultaneously herewith."
Is replaced with the following text:
"Even if the requirements of due process were satisfied, under the required choice-of-law analysis this Court would have to consider whether the laws of the 50 states differ, whether each state has an interest in applying its own laws to class members' claims, and which state's interests would be more impaired if its laws were not applied. See, e.g., Andren, 2017 WL 6509550 at *16. Applying this analysis, it is clear that application of the laws of 50 states is required because there are significant variations in the implied warranty laws. See Exhibit S. These differences make clear that predominance is lacking. See, e.g., Andren, 2017 WL 6509550 at *17; see also Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., 253 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001); Gianino v. Alacer Corp., 846 F.Supp.2d 1096, 1103 (C.D. Cal. 2012); Vinci v. Hyundai Motor Am., Case No. 8:17-cv-00997, ECF #44, pp. 7-13 (S.D.Cal. 2018).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
