§Why CasetextPricing

Farmer et al v. DirectSat USA, LLC.

REPLY

7 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,621 times   504 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”

  2. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor

    521 U.S. 591 (1997)   Cited 6,940 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

  3. Arreola v. Godinez

    546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 661 times
    Holding that the need for individual damages determination did not require denial of the motion for class certification

  4. Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC

    705 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013)   Cited 218 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individual damages issues that would “require 2341 separate evidentiary hearings” prevented certification

  5. Alvarez v. City of Chicago

    605 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 207 times
    Approving use of sub-classes in FLSA actions

  6. McReynolds v. Lynch

    672 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 141 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 23(f)'s 14-day limitations period is not jurisdictional

  7. Ross v. RBS Citizens, N.A.

    667 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 56 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in a class action wage claim, the intent behind the allegedly unlawful company-wide policy is not relevant