Anthony Roland
v.
Annett Holdings, Inc.
The defendant seeks further review after the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling certifying the case as a class action. The defendant contends the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class because the case does not present a common question of law or fact. The defendant further contends the individual factual and legal questions predominate over those common to the class.
Resister
Anthony Roland
Applicant
Annett Holdings, Inc.
Attorneys for the Resister
Christopher D. Spaulding
Nicholas L. Shaull
Matthew R. Denning
Donald G. Beattie
Nile Hicks
Attorney for the Applicant
Sasha L. Monthei
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Dec 17, 2019 9:00 AM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Date Amended:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen Romano, Judge. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. Gamble, S.J., takes no part. Opinion by Tabor, J. (13 pages)
Annett Holdings appeals the district court’s order certifying Anthony Roland’s class action, arguing the case presents no common question of fact or law and individual issues predominate over those common to the class. OPINION HOLDS: Because we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion a question common to all class members, the legality of the Memorandum of Understanding, lies at the heart of the dispute, or in its conclusion that common issue predominates over the individual issues involved, we affirm and remand for further proceedings.