65 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,675 times 505 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 6,983 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
Shady Grove Orthopedic v. Allstate Ins. Co.
559 U.S. 393 (2010) Cited 1,161 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding that rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"
R.A.V. v. St. Paul
505 U.S. 377 (1992) Cited 1,623 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding the government may not "license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,791 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
American Pipe Construction Co. v. Utah
414 U.S. 538 (1974) Cited 2,123 times 162 Legal Analyses
Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"
East Texas Motor Freight v. Rodriguez
431 U.S. 395 (1977) Cited 1,305 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs who lacked qualifications to be hired as drivers suffered no injury from alleged discriminatory practices and therefore lacked standing to represent class of persons who did suffer injury
Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 1,129 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs' commonality must connect to their claim for class relief
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.
463 U.S. 60 (1983) Cited 751 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding ban on "unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives" was not narrowly tailored to interest in "aiding parents' efforts to discuss birth control with their children."
Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.
666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 971 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding that false advertising "class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading"
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,111 times 1237 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 17200 - Unfair competition defined
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cited 17,919 times 315 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting unlawful business practices
Rule 17 - Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 Cited 9,202 times 23 Legal Analyses
Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"
Section 2072 - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
28 U.S.C. § 2072 Cited 1,812 times 37 Legal Analyses
Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases
Section 3344 - Using another's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness
Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 Cited 392 times 46 Legal Analyses
Granting $5728.42 of the $15,437.72 requested

Fraley et al v. Facebook, Inc.

65 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 rules of civil procedure allowing multiple claims to be litigated together "neither change plaintiffs' separate entitlements to relief nor abridge defendants' rights; they alter only how the claims are processed"

Holding the government may not "license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules"

Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"

Holding that plaintiffs who lacked qualifications to be hired as drivers suffered no injury from alleged discriminatory practices and therefore lacked standing to represent class of persons who did suffer injury

Holding that plaintiffs' commonality must connect to their claim for class relief

Holding ban on "unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives" was not narrowly tailored to interest in "aiding parents' efforts to discuss birth control with their children."

Holding that false advertising "class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading"

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"

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"

Granting the Supreme Court, not the parties, authority to "prescribe general rules of practice and procedure" for federal district court cases

Granting $5728.42 of the $15,437.72 requested