Ryan Delodder v. Aerotek Inc.

Good Law
471 F. App'x 804
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 201210-56755California1,041 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

We affirm the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

We review a district court’s denial of class certification for abuse of discretion. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir.2009). ‘“An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court, in making a discretionary ruling, relies upon an improper factor, omits consideration of a factor entitled to substantial weight, or mulls the correct mix of factors but makes a clear error of judgment in assaying them.’” Id. (quoting Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 536 F.3d 975, 977-78 (9th Cir.2008)).

Plaintiff argues that the district court gave too little weight to evidence that Aerotek required all recruiters to complete the same training and obey the same policies, and too much weight to testimony that Aerotek recruiters’ actual work activities varied from recruiter to recruiter. Our cases, however, required the district court to “make a factual determination as to whether class members are actually performing similar duties.” In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks removed; emphasis…

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.