37 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,939 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
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
Robidoux v. Celani
987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 873 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that recipients of public assistance challenging delays by the Vermont Department of Social Welfare could proceed under the "inherently transitory" exception in part because "the Department will almost always be able to process a delayed application before a plaintiff can obtain relief through litigation"
Hoffmann v. Sbarro, Inc.
982 F. Supp. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) Cited 563 times
Holding there is “no question, therefore, that plaintiffs have shown a factual nexus between their situation and the situation of other current and former” employees where defendant admitted it had a uniform policy regarding them all
Iglesias-Mendoza v. La Belle Farm, Inc.
239 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 288 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that questions of liability concerning whether class members were supposed to be paid the minimum wage and for overtime "are about the most perfect questions for class treatment"
Morisky v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co.
111 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D.N.J. 2000) Cited 293 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that an exemption inquiry was "extremely individual and fact intensive," and deciding that "the individual nature of the inquiry required make collective treatment improper in this case"
Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc.
250 F.R.D. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that class and collective actions "'are mutually exclusive,' so suits seeking relief under the FLSA may proceed only through a collective action, and not a class action" (quoting Lachapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286, 289 (5th Cir. 1975))
Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Systems, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 530 (N.D. Cal. 2007) Cited 211 times
Holding equitable tolling appropriate where defendant deliberately delayed in providing contact list
Fasanelli v. Heartland Brewery, Inc.
516 F. Supp. 2d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 188 times
Finding that declarations of nine employees, including plaintiff, was sufficient to infer common off-the-clock policies
Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp.
229 F.R.D. 50 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Cited 177 times
Finding that at the preliminary certification stage, "the focus of th[e] inquiry [] is not on whether there has been an actual violation of law but rather on whether the proposed plaintiffs are 'similarly situated'"
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"
Section 216 - Penalties
29 U.S.C. § 216 Cited 16,326 times 140 Legal Analyses
Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,027 times 126 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Eng-Hatcher v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al

37 Cited authorities

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 there is “no question, therefore, that plaintiffs have shown a factual nexus between their situation and the situation of other current and former” employees where defendant admitted it had a uniform policy regarding them all

Holding that questions of liability concerning whether class members were supposed to be paid the minimum wage and for overtime "are about the most perfect questions for class treatment"

Finding that an exemption inquiry was "extremely individual and fact intensive," and deciding that "the individual nature of the inquiry required make collective treatment improper in this case"

Holding that class and collective actions "'are mutually exclusive,' so suits seeking relief under the FLSA may proceed only through a collective action, and not a class action" (quoting Lachapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286, 289 (5th Cir. 1975))

Holding equitable tolling appropriate where defendant deliberately delayed in providing contact list

Finding that declarations of nine employees, including plaintiff, was sufficient to infer common off-the-clock policies

Finding that at the preliminary certification stage, "the focus of th[e] inquiry [] is not on whether there has been an actual violation of law but rather on whether the proposed plaintiffs are 'similarly situated'"

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"

Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely