Lombardi v. Zimany

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding application of California law was constitutionally permissible where defendant's corporate headquarters were in California, the defendant's executive decision makers were largely in California, and the processes at issue were developed and directed in California
• “This Court, among others in this circuit, has rejected this proposition as overly narrow in the consumer protection context.”
• “The Court therefore concludes that the ascertainability requirement does not apply to Rule 23(b)(2) actions.”
• a plaintiff’s knowledge of a 19 ||defendant’s practices “precludes them from showing a likelihood of being injured in the 20 ||future by those practices”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).