34 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,955 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters
459 U.S. 519 (1983) Cited 5,033 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries
Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) Cited 792 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that to prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, "sufficient specification of the essential terms."
Grayson v. K Mart Corp.
79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996) Cited 780 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an individual who did not file an EEOC charge may opt into an ADEA class action by "piggybacking" onto a timely charge filed by one of the named plaintiffs, provided that the claims of the named plaintiff and the piggybacking plaintiff arise out of similar discriminatory treatment in the same time frame
Prado-Steiman v. Bush
221 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2000) Cited 501 times 1 Legal Analyses
Adopting a balancing approach with guidance from Blair and Mowbray and adding two additional "guideposts": the nature and status of the litigation and the likelihood that future events would make immediate review more or less appropriate
Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals
350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) Cited 436 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the antitrust claims of disparate groups, distributors of vitamins and producers of end-products incorporating vitamins, could not be mixed together where the interests of the class representatives and some class members were " significantly different"
U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Ind. Gas Co., Inc.
350 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 357 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "right question" is not whether the plaintiff has alleged "facts that tend to defeat affirmative defenses," but "whether it is possible to imagine proof of the critical facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint" that would fall within the period of limitations
Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp.
871 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2017) Cited 159 times 6 Legal Analyses
Requiring the debtor to have "intended to make a mockery of the judicial system"
In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig.
837 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2016) Cited 134 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding the Modafinil vacatur and remand did "not foreclose the possibility of class status in case, or where putative class is of similar composition."
IN RE LOWER LAKE ERIE IRON ORE ANTITRUST LIT
998 F.2d 1144 (3d Cir. 1993) Cited 201 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that plaintiff steel companies alleged antitrust injury from inflated dock handling charges resulting from defendant railroads' conspiracy even though dock companies were also victims
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,939 times 1234 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

IN RE: Androgel Antitrust Litigation (No. II)

34 Cited authorities

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

Holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries

Holding that to prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, "sufficient specification of the essential terms."

Adopting a balancing approach with guidance from Blair and Mowbray and adding two additional "guideposts": the nature and status of the litigation and the likelihood that future events would make immediate review more or less appropriate

Holding that the antitrust claims of disparate groups, distributors of vitamins and producers of end-products incorporating vitamins, could not be mixed together where the interests of the class representatives and some class members were " significantly different"

Holding that the "right question" is not whether the plaintiff has alleged "facts that tend to defeat affirmative defenses," but "whether it is possible to imagine proof of the critical facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint" that would fall within the period of limitations

Requiring the debtor to have "intended to make a mockery of the judicial system"

Holding the Modafinil vacatur and remand did "not foreclose the possibility of class status in case, or where putative class is of similar composition."

Concluding that plaintiff steel companies alleged antitrust injury from inflated dock handling charges resulting from defendant railroads' conspiracy even though dock companies were also victims

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"