Hoany G. Cortez, an individual, for himself v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. and SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOANY G. CORTEZ, an individual, for
himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. and
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56356
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-05388-R-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 6, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The district court erred in failing to explain its reasons for denying the
unopposed class-certification motion of plaintiff Hoany G. Cortez (“Cortez”). The
FILED
OCT 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

We express no view on the merits of the underlying certification motion.1
2
district court’s conclusory assertion that this case presents “no common questions”
of law or fact under Rule 23(a) falls far short of the “rigorous analysis” required in
the class-certification context. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v.
Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). Nor is this a case where the “issues [a]re so
plain and the analytical framework so clear that the record,” standing alone,
enables effective appellate review. Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952,
961 (9th Cir. 2005). Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the record suggests
a number of possible common issues, such as whether defendant Saia Motor
Freight Line, LLC maintains an official policy of refusing to reimburse workers for
required footwear and whether federal OSHA regulations legitimize such a policy.1
The district court also omitted any mention of the remaining Rule 23(a) factors and
did not discuss any of the prongs of Rule 23(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)–(b).
The dearth of substantive analysis in the district court’s March 24, 2008
hearing and March 28, 2008 order prevents this court from engaging in
“meaningful appellate review” and requires that we vacate the decision and remand
for reconsideration of Cortez’s motion. See Narouz v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC,
591 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 2010). Given the circumstances of this case, we are
not convinced that it is necessary to reassign this case to a different judge on

-- 2 of 3 --

3
remand. See United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir.
1986) (per curiam).
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --