Andrew Thomasson v. Gc Services Limited Partnershi

MEMORANDUM

Defendant GC Services Limited Partnership appeals the district court’s decision to certify a class comprising Plaintiffs Andrew and Rebecca Thomasson and 412 individuals whose telephone calls with Defendant’s employees were monitored, allegedly without warning or consent. We granted Defendant’s petition for interlocutory review pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). We review a district court’s class certification determination for an abuse of discretion. Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir.2011). We reverse.

Class certification is proper only if Plaintiffs establish that the four prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) apply to the class they seek to certify. Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581, 588 (9th Cir.2012). Central to our decision is Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement, which provides that one or more questions of law or fact must be common to the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). To satisfy commonality, there must be significant proof that the entire class suffered a common injury. Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1029 (9th Cir.2012). The common injury must be connected to the…