Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a showing that “material misrepresentations or omissions” were made “to the whole class” was a requirement for class certification
• referring to actions dismissed on the basis of claim-splitting as those in which “a plaintiff was, in effect, attempting to avoid an (continued . . .
• noting 9 that “if a defendant seeks to avoid facing a class action, it must take certain steps regarding ‘[a]ll 10 consumers similarly situated’ to the person giving notice”
• referring to actions dismissed for claim splitting as ones where the “plaintiff was, in effect, attempting to avoid an unfavorable prior ruling in one case by filing essentially the Q|| same claims in a new case”
• noting in reference to actions under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act that “[i]f the . . . omission is not material as to all class members, the issue of reliance would vary from consumer to consumer and the class should not be certified”
• “We have held that the mere fact that there might be differences in damage calculations is not sufficient to defeat class certification”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).