§Why CasetextPricing

American Federation of Government Employees et al v. Hawley et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Certify Class

13 Cited authorities

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

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 5,678 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

  2. Sussman v. U.S. Marshals

    494 F.3d 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 553 times
    Holding that the Act grants access to only those records that are “about” the requestor, “not to all information pertaining to them that happens to be contained in a system of records”

  3. Doe v. Chao

    306 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2002)   Cited 349 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district judge has “the sound discretion” to decide whether to allow additional evidence in this situation

  4. Taylor v. D.C. Water Sewer Auth

    241 F.R.D. 33 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 43 times
    Rejecting claim that aggregating data across different pay plans was improper because it did not satisfy Chow test

  5. Doe v. Stephens

    851 F.2d 1457 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that aside from two specific subsections, the Privacy Act "precludes other forms of declaratory and injunctive relief"

  6. American Federation of Government Employees v. Hawley

    543 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that allegations that the Office of Inspector General "repeatedly informed" the agency of problems with its information security pled "intentional and willful" conduct

  7. Rice v. U.S.

    245 F.R.D. 3 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 7 times
    Granting summary judgment for defendants where Privacy Act plaintiffs offered no evidence to support their cursory declarations that they suffered "anger, dismay, anxiety and fear."

  8. Puerto Rico v. M/V Emily S.

    158 F.R.D. 9 (D.P.R. 1994)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that a proposed class was unmanageably broad

  9. Does I Through III v. District of Columbia

    216 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 7 times
    Rejecting standing to challenge "new policy" where "plaintiffs neither claim that they have been injured pursuant to that policy, nor that anyone has been injured thereunder" and instead merely sought to "challeng[e] isolated decisions by District decision-makers"

  10. Schmidt v. United States Dept. of Veterans Affairs

    218 F.R.D. 619 (E.D. Wis. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the Privacy Act term “disclose” means “the placing into the view of another information which was previously unknown”

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,974 times   1236 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 552a - Records maintained on individuals

    5 U.S.C. § 552a   Cited 4,438 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Finding that it is a Department of Justice component that has as its principal function the enforcement of criminal laws includ[ing] correctional authorities