NANCY VITOLO V. BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC., No. 14-56706 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 24 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK NANCY VITOLO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, No. 14-56706 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07728-DSF-PJW Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. BLOOMINGDALE’S, INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 6, 2016 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. We vacate the district court’s judgment and remand to the district court for further proceedings in light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), the Ninth * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Circuit’s decision in Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015), and the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Perez v. U-Haul Co. of California, No. B262029, 2016 WL 4938809 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2016). VACATED AND REMANDED. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
