Ellis

Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Good Law
657 F.3d 970·2011 WL 4336668·113 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 496·80 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 832·94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,282
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 16, 201107-15838California8,358 words

Opinion

Opinion

Smith, J.

Costco Wholesale Corporation appeals the district court’s order granting class certification in a class action brought by Shirley “Rae” Ellis, Leah Horstman, and Elaine Sasaki (collectively Plaintiffs). In the class action, Plaintiffs allege that Costco’s promotional practices discriminate based on gender. Because we granted Costco permission to file an interlocutory appeal, our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (e). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

This' complicated case requires us to consider a number of issues relating to class certification. Several of these issues have recently been clarified by the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551 , 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011). Given this new precedent altering existing case law, we must remand to the district court. See Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Curry, 68 F.3d 342, 343 (9th Cir.1995). Specifically, we take the following actions: (1) Because at least one named Plaintiff (Sasaki) alleges a concrete injury that is both directly traceable to Costco’s allegedly discriminatory practices and is redressable by both injunctive relief and monetary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.