16 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”
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,735 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
Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay
437 U.S. 463 (1978) Cited 2,829 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court's "discretionary" determination that a suit may not proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was not a "final decision" appealable under § 1291
Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Langdeau
371 U.S. 555 (1963) Cited 339 times
Rejecting argument that § 1348 limited venue over national banks
Gray v. First Winthrop Corp.
133 F.R.D. 39 (N.D. Cal. 1990) Cited 230 times
Finding that a motion to dismiss is not grounds for staying discovery and that liberally allowing stays the resolution of motions is "directly at odds with the need for expeditious resolution of litigation"
Stastny v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co.
628 F.2d 267 (4th Cir. 1980) Cited 128 times
Holding that a "pattern or practice" of employment discrimination can be shown through a "sufficient number of instances of similar discriminatory treatment" or statistical data
Nelson v. United States Steel Corp.
709 F.2d 675 (11th Cir. 1983) Cited 80 times
Holding that plaintiff has the burden of showing commonality of claims between himself and class he proposes to represent
Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
74 F.R.D. 24 (N.D. Cal. 1977) Cited 80 times
Setting forth the requirements of commonality and typicality to maintain a class action claim involving unlawful employment practices
In re Urethane Antitrust Litig.
237 F.R.D. 454 (D. Kan. 2006) Cited 22 times
In Urethane, the district court held that the downstream data requested by the defendants bore directly on the class-certification questions of whether common questions of law or fact were predominant and whether the class representatives' claims were typical of the class.
In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.
258 F.R.D. 167 (D.D.C. 2009) Cited 12 times
Bifurcating class discovery from merits discovery
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 97,825 times 674 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
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"

Feske et al v. MHC Thousand Trails Limited Partnership et al

16 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 a district court's "discretionary" determination that a suit may not proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was not a "final decision" appealable under § 1291

Rejecting argument that § 1348 limited venue over national banks

Finding that a motion to dismiss is not grounds for staying discovery and that liberally allowing stays the resolution of motions is "directly at odds with the need for expeditious resolution of litigation"

Holding that a "pattern or practice" of employment discrimination can be shown through a "sufficient number of instances of similar discriminatory treatment" or statistical data

Holding that plaintiff has the burden of showing commonality of claims between himself and class he proposes to represent

Setting forth the requirements of commonality and typicality to maintain a class action claim involving unlawful employment practices

In Urethane, the district court held that the downstream data requested by the defendants bore directly on the class-certification questions of whether common questions of law or fact were predominant and whether the class representatives' claims were typical of the class.

Bifurcating class discovery from merits discovery

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

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"