
    Gary GRABEK, Shirley Waldbuesser, Mark A. Geuder, Dwite Russell, Julie Spicer; individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Northrop Grumman Corporation Savings Plan Administrative Committee, Northrop Grumman Corporation Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board of Directors, Northrop Grumman Corporation Savings Plan Administrative Committee, J. Michael Hateley, as Corporate Vice President and former Chief Human Resources and Administrative Officer, Ian Ziskin, as Chair of the Administrative Committee and Corporate Vice President and Chief Human Resources and Administrative Officer, Dennis Wootan, as Secretary of the Administrative Committee, John T. Chain, Jr., all in their capacities as Members of the Compensation and Management Development Committee and as Members of the Northrop Grumman Corporation Board of Directors, Lewis W. Coleman, Phillip Frost, Kevin Sharer, Philip A. Odeen, Stephen Frank, Ryan Hamlin, Rose Mary Abelson, Vic Fazio, Charles Larson, Aulan Peters, Ronald D. Sugar; Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-56448.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 10, 2009.
    Filed Sept. 8, 2009.
    Jerome Joseph Schlichter, Michael A. Wolff, Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, St. Louis, MO, Jay E. Sushelsky, Esquire, Senior, Aarp Foundation Litigation, Washington, DC, William A. White, Esquire, Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Squitteri & Fearon, LLP, Thomas J. McKenna, Esquire, Gainey & McKenna, New York, NY, Daniel Keller, Esquire, Keller Fishbaek LLP, Agoura Hills, CA, Nancy G. Ross, Esquire, McDermott Will & Emery, Chicago, IL, Chris C. Scheithauer, Esquire, Trial, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WARDLAW, RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Appellants, employees of the Northrop Grumman Corporation, challenge the district court’s denial of their motion for class certification in this ERISA action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty.

1. The district court abused its discretion by failing to make any findings whatsoever regarding the class certification requirements articulated in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. See Parra v. Bashas’, Inc., 536 F.3d 975, 977-78 (9th Cir.2008) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court ... omits consideration of a [Rule 23] factor ...”).

2. Although the determination of class certification is within the province of the district court rather than the appeals court, this case appears to meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P 23(a) and (b). See Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 833-34, 119 S.Ct. 2295, 144 L.Ed.2d 715 (1999) (A “[classic example[]” of a Rule 23(b)(1)(B) action is one “charging a breach of trust by an indenture trustee or other fiduciary similarly affecting the members of a large class of beneficiaries ... ”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

3. Due to the failure of the district court to make the requisite findings, we vacate the district court’s August 7, 2007, order denying class certification. Although we recognize and regret the burden placed on other judges in the judicial district, to avoid further delay in resolving this matter, we order reassignment to a different judge on remand. See, e.g., United States v. Murillo, 548 F.3d 1256, 1257 (9th Cir.2008).

VACATED AND REMANDED. CASE TO BE REASSIGNED TO A DIFFERENT DISTRICT JUDGE ON REMAND. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     