§Why CasetextPricing

Brandi Garris et al v. City of Los Angeles

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class 38

16 Cited authorities

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services

    436 U.S. 658 (1978)   Cited 67,072 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "local government . . . are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,635 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”

  3. Harlow v. Fitzgerald

    457 U.S. 800 (1982)   Cited 31,491 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"

  4. Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership

    507 U.S. 380 (1993)   Cited 7,711 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys

  5. Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin

    417 U.S. 156 (1974)   Cited 3,762 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

  6. Califano v. Yamasaki

    442 U.S. 682 (1979)   Cited 1,978 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claimants could bring social security class action "at least so long as the membership of the class is limited to those who meet the requirements of § 205(g)"

  7. Wood v. Strickland

    420 U.S. 308 (1975)   Cited 1,844 times
    Holding that an official's actions are not justified if the official ignores or disregards "settled, indisputable law"

  8. Zepeda v. United States I.N.S.

    753 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 1,380 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal courts may not enjoin parties it lacks personal jurisdiction over, nor attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court

  9. Conagra Brands, Inc. v. Briseno

    138 S. Ct. 313 (2017)   Cited 14 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 16–1221. 10-10-2017 CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., fka ConAgra Foods, Inc., petitioner, v. Robert BRISENO, et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

  10. Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co

    28 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that district court abused its discretion by granting Rule 4 extension, when attorney had mistakenly believed that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) the Rule 4 period began three days after the judgment was mailed, because the rules were "nonambiguous"

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 486,730 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 48,352 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  13. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,923 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"