§Why CasetextPricing

Brady, et al v. Air Line Pilots Association, et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition

9 Cited authorities

  1. Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.

    446 U.S. 238 (1980)   Cited 566 times
    Holding an impartial and disinterested tribunal is required in adjudicative proceedings

  2. 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"

  3. In re Community Bank of Northern Virginia

    418 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 498 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding complete preemption exists with respect to Section 27, and state law usury claims against state-chartered bank were appropriately removed to federal court

  4. Walsh v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

    726 F.2d 956 (3d Cir. 1983)   Cited 165 times
    Finding that the trial court did not err in not appointing counsel for objectors

  5. Stair ex rel. Smith v. Thomas & Cook

    254 F.R.D. 191 (D.N.J. 2008)   Cited 25 times
    Finding typicality when "the letter plaintiff received from defendants was identical to those received by the class members in all relevant aspects"

  6. Kyriazi v. Western Elec. Co.

    647 F.2d 388 (3d Cir. 1981)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that judge did not abuse his discretion by certifying opt-in class

  7. Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    614 F. Supp. 2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2009)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that tolling analysis is “fact-specific” and making “blanket tolling order” is inappropriate

  8. Sessions v. Owens-Ill., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1669 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 13, 2011)

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1669. June 13, 2011 MEMORANDUM CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge Presently before the court is defendants' motion (Doc. 149) for leave to take limited discovery from absent class members, in this class action filed pursuant to the Employee Retirement Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001- 1461. In the above-captioned case, plaintiffs allege that they were entitled to receive enhanced retirement benefits, under the Eighth Amended and Restated Salary Retirement Plan for

  9. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,939 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"