39 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,780 times 508 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”
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 7,048 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
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend
569 U.S. 27 (2013) Cited 2,277 times 235 Legal Analyses
Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds
568 U.S. 455 (2013) Cited 1,864 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”
Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC
565 U.S. 368 (2012) Cited 657 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that "Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits"
Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard
452 U.S. 89 (1981) Cited 1,446 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"
Sosna v. Iowa
419 U.S. 393 (1975) Cited 1,746 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the requisite Article III "case or controversy" may exist "between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff, even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot"
Klay v. Humana, Inc.
382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) Cited 559 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that where there were variations in state laws precluding a single class of doctors alleging breaches of contract by health maintenance organizations that systematically underpaid physicians for their services, subclasses could be certified covering class members applying the same legal standards
Mullins v. Direct Dig., LLC
795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) Cited 376 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's due process is implicated when the "calculation of each class member's damages affects the total amount of damages it owes to the class"
Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp. (In re Whirlpool Corp.)
722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) Cited 392 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that, if a design defect is proven, "all class members have experienced injury as a result of the decreased value of the product purchased" and all "were injured at the point of sale."
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,573 times 1241 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"
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,441 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
47 U.S.C. § 227 Cited 5,735 times 740 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals
Section 2342 - Jurisdiction of court of appeals
28 U.S.C. § 2342 Cited 1,075 times 26 Legal Analyses
Granting courts of appeals jurisdiction to review "final orders of the Federal Communications Commission"
Section 310.4 - Abusive telemarketing acts or practices
16 C.F.R. § 310.4 Cited 173 times 17 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting deceptive or abusive telemarketing acts or practices

Cordoba v. Directv, LLC et al

39 Cited authorities

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”

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

Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"

Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”

Holding that "Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits"

Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"

Holding that the requisite Article III "case or controversy" may exist "between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff, even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot"

Holding that a defendant's due process is implicated when the "calculation of each class member's damages affects the total amount of damages it owes to the class"

Holding that, if a design defect is proven, "all class members have experienced injury as a result of the decreased value of the product purchased" and all "were injured at the point of sale."

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"

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

Granting courts of appeals jurisdiction to review "final orders of the Federal Communications Commission"

Prohibiting deceptive or abusive telemarketing acts or practices