§Why CasetextPricing

Cartner et al v. Hewitt Associates, L.L.C.

MOTION to deny Rule 23 Class Allegations and to Strike Plaintiffs' Class Allegations

27 Cited authorities

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

    507 U.S. 380 (1993)   Cited 7,764 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clients must be held accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys

  2. Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

    564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 799 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, "sufficient specification of the essential terms."

  3. 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"

  4. Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals

    350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003)   Cited 438 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the antitrust claims of disparate groups, distributors of vitamins and producers of end-products incorporating vitamins, could not be mixed together where the interests of the class representatives and some class members were " significantly different"

  5. Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co.

    784 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1986)   Cited 500 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "`[a]llegations of similar discriminatory employment practices, such as . . . use of entirely subjective personnel processes that operated to discriminate, would satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23'" (alterations in original) (quoting Carpenter v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 706 F.2d 608, 617 (5th Cir. 1983))

  6. Babineau v. Fed. Exp. Corp.

    576 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 146 times
    Finding that district court properly denied certification under Rule 23(b), because "the primary remedy sought . . . [was] unquestionably monetary" even though limited injunctive relief was also requested

  7. Advanced Estimating System, Inc. v. Riney

    130 F.3d 996 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 147 times
    Holding that "attorney's misunderstanding of the plain language of a [court] rule cannot constitute excusable neglect such that a party is relieved of the consequences of failing to comply with a statutory deadline"

  8. Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, a Div., Pullman

    678 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1982)   Cited 208 times
    Holding that the receipt of an EEOC right-to-sue letter is a condition precedent to a Title VII lawsuit that may be equitably modified and is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and concluding that "the receipt of a right-to-sue letter subsequent to the commencement of a Title VII action, but while the action remains pending, satisfies the precondition"

  9. White v. Osmose, Inc.

    204 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (M.D. Ala. 2002)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that "the similarities necessary to maintain a collective action under § 216(b) must extend `beyond the mere facts of job duties and pay provisions.'"

  10. Hollis v. Fla. State Univ.

    259 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 111 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this amendment abrogated derivative jurisdiction

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 48,916 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."

  12. 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"

  13. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,462 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

  14. Rule 1.220 - CLASS ACTIONS

    Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220   Cited 250 times

    (a) Prerequisites to Class Representation. Before any claim or defense may be maintained on behalf of a class by one party or more suing or being sued as the representative of all the members of a class, the court shall first conclude that (1) the members of the class are so numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable, (2) the claim or defense of the representative party raises questions of law or fact common to the questions of law or fact raised by the claim or defense of each