Summary
noting that an objector's benefit must be "actual and concrete not conceptual or doctrinal"
Summary of this case from In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.Opinion
No. 11-55136 D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02705-CAB No. 11-55150 No. 11-55189
05-24-2012
SHAWNDEE HARTLESS, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLOROX COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. SONIA NEWMAN, Objector-Appellant. SHAWNDEE HARTLESS, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLOROX COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. OMAR RIVERO, Objector - Appellant. SHAWNDEE HARTLESS, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLOROX COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. SAM P. CANNATA, Objector - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, GRABER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Objectors Sonia Newman, Omar Rivero, and Sam P. Cannata appeal the district court's class certification in this class action brought by lead Plaintiff Shawndee Hartless against Defendant Clorox Company. The district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the settlement class. See Parra v. Bashas', Inc., 536 F.3d 975, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating the standard of review). On this record, the court was not required to divide the nationwide class into sub-classes, as the Objectors wish.
AFFIRMED.