§Why CasetextPricing

The Medical Society of the State of New York et al v. UnitedHealth Group Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 75 MOTION to Strike Document No. 73

29 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,780 times   508 Legal Analyses
    Holding in Rule 23 context that “[w]ithout some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer”

  2. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

    572 U.S. 118 (2014)   Cited 2,932 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the respondent could not "obtain relief" under § 1125 "without evidence of injury proximately caused by [the petitioner's] alleged misrepresentations"

  3. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.

    545 U.S. 546 (2005)   Cited 4,276 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the supplemental jurisdiction statute permits the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs who fail to satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as the other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff does satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement

  4. Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops

    155 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998)   Cited 727 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that class certification was improper because "plaintiffs simply cannot advance a single collective breach of contract action on the basis of multiple different contracts" when there are "manifest conflicts of interest" in their claimed recovery

  5. Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Assocs. LLC

    780 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2015)   Cited 301 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that though plaintiffs complained of defendants’ conduct in creating a default judgment mill that would end in a state-court judgment, that judgment was a mere ratification

  6. Catholic Healthcare W. v. U.S. Foodservice Inc. (In re U.S. Foodservice Inc. Pricing Litig.)

    729 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 307 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding fees "created for the purpose of misrepresenting cost and ... then kept secret so as to deceive customers about overbilling" was a question amenable to common proof

  7. Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

    727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013)   Cited 283 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding the predominance requirement is satisfied because "[t]here is a single, central, common issue of liability: whether the Sears washing machine was defective."

  8. Pascack Valley Hosp. v. Local 464A

    388 F.3d 393 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 337 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a hospital had an independent breach of contract action against the insurer because “the dispute here is not over the right to payment, which might be said to depend on the patients' assignments to the Providers, but the amount, or level, of payment, which depends on the terms of the provider agreements” (emphasis in original; quotation marks and alterations omitted)

  9. Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc

    667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011)   Cited 263 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a district court's “approval of the parties' settlement should not be considered a recognition or expansion of substantive rights” under the Rules Enabling Act

  10. Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp.

    778 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2015)   Cited 201 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individualized damages determinations alone did not preclude class certification under the predominance inquiry

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 354,229 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 71,368 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  13. Section 1104 - Fiduciary duties

    29 U.S.C. § 1104   Cited 4,886 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Specifying duties of a "fiduciary . . . with respect to a plan"

  14. Section 2560.503-1 - Claims procedure

    29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1   Cited 2,863 times   77 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1