Between the period of October 16, 2009 and October 19, 2009, four separate publication requests were filed in Cohen v. DirecTV. The requests are contained here, here, here and here.
In Cohen, the Second District upheld denial of certification of a UCL class because the proposed class included persons who had not viewed alleged deceptive promotions by DirecTV. The Court reasoned predominance could not be met under circumstances, and in fact, went so far as to state that “we find Tobacco II to be irrelevant because the issue of ‘standing’ simply is not the same thing as the issue of “commonality.”
As I discussed in a prior post, Cohen is poorly reasoned, as the California Supreme Court rejected this very line of analysis in In Re Tobacco II Cases.