§Why CasetextPricing

James et al v. China Grill Management, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 98 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval of class settlement. . Document

43 Cited authorities

  1. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,954 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

  2. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 5,673 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23

  3. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling

    493 U.S. 165 (1989)   Cited 3,006 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to implement § 216(b)

  4. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,052 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"

  5. Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. United States

    679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 3,866 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that settlement of an FLSA claim must be approved by either a court or the Department of Labor

  6. Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co.

    471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 768 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court must make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements" and "resolve[] . . . factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement"

  7. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.

    396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 755 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that decision to grant or reject objector's motion for discovery regarding fairness of settlement depended on "whether or not the District Court had before it sufficient facts intelligently to approve the settlement offer"

  8. Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc.

    209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 869 times
    Holding that risk must be measured at the time the lawsuit is filed

  9. In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation

    391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 666 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that TPPs had standing to assert antitrust claims because they suffered “direct and independent harm” as a result of paying supracompetitive prices for the defendant's drug regardless of any injury suffered by the consumer plaintiffs

  10. In re Cendant Corp. Litigation

    264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 712 times
    Holding that the PSLRA is clear that "the power to `select and retain' lead counsel belongs . . . to the lead plaintiff, and the court's role is confined to deciding whether to `approve' that choice" and that should the court disagree with the lead plaintiffs choice "it should clearly state why . . . and should direct the lead plaintiff to undertake an acceptable selection process"

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,931 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"

  12. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,366 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”