FILED
FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 20 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIRAN KAUR, individually, and on No. 16-80060
behalf of other members of the general
public similarily situated, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05544-VC
Northern District of California,
Plaintiff-Petitioner, San Francisco
v.
ORDER
THINGS REMEMBERED, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendant-Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition is
granted. The reply has been filed.
The court, in its discretion, grants the petition for permission to appeal the
district court’s April 20, 2016 order denying class action certification. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(f); Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam). Within 14 days after the date of this order, petitioner shall perfect the
appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d).
hmb/MOATT
In addition to all other issues the parties may wish to raise in this appeal, the
parties shall brief the issue of whether the district court should have considered less
drastic alternatives before denying class certification based on concerns with the
vigor of class counsel’s representation. See, e.g., Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc.,
513 F.3d 1314, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2008) (“In the event that class counsel does act
improperly, the ordinary remedy is disciplinary action against the lawyer and
remedial notice to class members, not denial of class certification.”) (internal
citation omitted).
The court sua sponte grants any individual or entity leave under Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) to file an amicus curiae brief addressing the
above-stated issue in this appeal. The brief(s) shall comply with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 29(c) and (d); the due dates are governed by Rule 29(e).
hmb/MOATT 2 16-80060