19 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,683 times 505 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”
United States v. Raddatz
447 U.S. 667 (1980) Cited 7,130 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge's adoption of a magistrate judge's findings related to a suppression hearing does not violate due process "so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court"
Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard
452 U.S. 89 (1981) Cited 1,431 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"
Paterson-Leitch v. Massachusetts Elec
840 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1988) Cited 2,041 times
Holding categorically that party is not entitled as of right to district judge's de novo review of matter never raised before magistrate judge
In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc.
75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,055 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that design and manufacturing differences across ten different models of the same product meant potentially varying results on strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn claims
Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans
571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 629 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class by relying on uniform exemption policy "to the near exclusion of other factors"
Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co.
511 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2008) Cited 222 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that victims of Hurricane Frances had class representative standing to represent victims of other hurricanes that had hit Florida that year in suit against insurance company for breach of contract because the absent class members' claims were "identical" to those brought by the named plaintiffs
Adams v. Ameritech Services, Inc.
231 F.3d 414 (7th Cir. 2000) Cited 128 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "salary grade" instead of "job titles" is too general to furnish the kind of information the statute contemplates; and stating that "[a]s a form of worker protection legislation, the OWBPA demands information that allows people to ascertain whether they are being treated fairly vis-a-vis their peers."
Mulero-Abreu v. P.R. Police Dep't
675 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2012) Cited 85 times
Finding the district court's dismissal of claims under Rule 37(b) within its discretion, where plaintiff's "failure to provide the required responses to both interrogatories and requests for production was in flagrant disregard of multiple court orders."
Yaffe v. Powers
454 F.2d 1362 (1st Cir. 1972) Cited 148 times
Holding that, because “notice to the members of a(b) class is not required ... the actual membership of the class need not ... be precisely delimited”
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 504,330 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 168,221 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,135 times 1237 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"

Breda v. Cellco Partnership et al

19 Cited authorities

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”

Holding that a trial judge's adoption of a magistrate judge's findings related to a suppression hearing does not violate due process "so long as the ultimate decision is made by the district court"

Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"

Holding categorically that party is not entitled as of right to district judge's de novo review of matter never raised before magistrate judge

Holding that design and manufacturing differences across ten different models of the same product meant potentially varying results on strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn claims

Holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class by relying on uniform exemption policy "to the near exclusion of other factors"

Finding the district court's dismissal of claims under Rule 37(b) within its discretion, where plaintiff's "failure to provide the required responses to both interrogatories and requests for production was in flagrant disregard of multiple court orders."

Holding that, because “notice to the members of a(b) class is not required ... the actual membership of the class need not ... be precisely delimited”

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

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"