Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Charles L. Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 79-3112 (1984)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 79-3112 Visitors: 26
Filed: Feb. 23, 1984
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 726 F.2d 1366 36 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1592 Charles L. JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 79-3112. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Feb. 23, 1984. Alan Terakawa, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Walter Cochran-Bond, A. Thomas Hunt, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. SECOND ORDER AMENDING OPINION (Opinion, Aug. 18, 1983, 11 Cir.1983, 713 F.2d 503 ) Before TANG, SCHROEDER and NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 The Order Amen
More

726 F.2d 1366

36 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1592

Charles L. JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 79-3112.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 1984.

Alan Terakawa, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Walter Cochran-Bond, A. Thomas Hunt, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

SECOND ORDER AMENDING OPINION

(Opinion, Aug. 18, 1983, 11 Cir.1983, 713 F.2d 503)

Before TANG, SCHROEDER and NELSON, Circuit Judges.

1

The Order Amending Opinion filed January 19, 1984,* is withdrawn.

2

The opinion filed August 18, 1983, is amended as follows:

3

After the fourth paragraph of the opinion, the following paragraph shall be inserted:

4

Falcon does not prohibit "across the board" class formation in every instance. See [General Telephone Co. v.] Falcon [457 U.S. 147], 102 S.Ct. [2364] at 2371 n. 15 [72 L. Ed. 2d 740] (Across the board actions aimed at a specific hiring practice are permissible under Rule 23). However, even though it would be permissible to form a class of all black applicants challenging a specified hiring practice, we must conclude after recomputation of the actual number of rejected black applicants, that such a class in the present case would still fail under the numerosity requirement of Rule 23.

*

The only change made by the order of January 19, 1984, was the addition of a new paragraph after the fourth paragraph of the original opinion; the paragraph so added is revised by the second order of amendment

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer