§Why CasetextPricing

Cruz et al v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

Memorandum in Opposition TO DEFENDANT'S 188 MOTION TO DECERTIFY THE CLASS

59 Cited authorities

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

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 5,666 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. United States v. Scheffer

    523 U.S. 303 (1998)   Cited 1,979 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the blanket exclusion of polygraph evidence didn't violate the right to present a defense, as the law was "a rational and proportional means of advancing the legitimate interest in barring unreliable evidence"

  3. Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin

    417 U.S. 156 (1974)   Cited 3,760 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

  4. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.

    150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 3,047 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"

  5. Staton v. Boeing Co.

    327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,920 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "named plaintiffs ... are eligible for reasonable incentive payments" in addition to reimbursement "for their substantiated litigation expenses, and identifiable services rendered to the class directly under the supervision of class counsel"

  6. Morgan v. Family Dollar

    551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 910 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sufficient evidence supported jury's determination that Family Dollar Store Managers were nonexempt employees

  7. Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans

    571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 619 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"

  8. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

    280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 674 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that refusal to certify a class "on the sole ground that it would be unmanageable is disfavored and ‘should be the exception rather than the rule’ " (quoting In re S. Cent. States Bakery Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 86 F.R.D. 407, 423 (M.D. La. 1980) )

  9. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 514 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers

  10. Blackie v. Barrack

    524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975)   Cited 1,135 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the need to determine individualized damages does not defeat class certification

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,840 times   1232 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 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,798 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  13. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,495 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

  14. Section 226 - Itemized statement of wages

    Cal. Lab. Code § 226   Cited 2,230 times   117 Legal Analyses
    Providing only statutory penalties

  15. Section 201 - Computation and payment of wages upon discharge

    Cal. Lab. Code § 201   Cited 1,745 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Providing that, "[i]f an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately"

  16. Section 1194 - Recovery by employee in civil action regardless of agreement to receive lesser wage

    Cal. Lab. Code § 1194   Cited 1,737 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing an employee receiving less than the legal overtime compensation to recover the unpaid balance, interest, attorney's fees, and costs of suit in a civil action

  17. Section 1021.5 - Attorney's fees in action resulting in enforcement of important right affecting public interest

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5   Cited 1,723 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "a court may award" attorney's fees "to a successful party "

  18. Section 512 - Meal periods

    Cal. Lab. Code § 512   Cited 1,132 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Imposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted

  19. Section 202 - Employees not under contract; notice; state employees

    Cal. Lab. Code § 202   Cited 741 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Awarding immediate payment of all earned and unpaid wages upon discharge, layoff, or resignation

  20. Section 1174 - Duties of employers

    Cal. Lab. Code § 1174   Cited 359 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Requiring employers to keep payroll records of hours worked daily by employees