§Why CasetextPricing

HENDERSON v. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Extension of Time to File Class Certification

9 Cited authorities

  1. Seils v. Rochester City School District

    192 F. Supp. 2d 100 (W.D.N.Y. 2002)   Cited 66 times
    Finding “background circumstances” analysis persuasive, but declining to address the issue since the plaintiffs were unable to establish the fourth prong of the prima facie inquiry

  2. Grandson v. University of Minnesota

    272 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2001)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking plaintiffs' class allegations because they provided no credible reason for their failure to file a certification motion prior to the deadline set forth in the local rules

  3. Howard v. Gutierrez

    474 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that res judicata did not bar plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim where, if she had pleaded the claim in her initial Title VII complaint, it would have been dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies

  4. Thomas v. Knight

    No. CIV.A. 02-630(RBW) (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2003)   Cited 9 times

    Civil Action No. 02-630 (RBW) March 31, 2003 MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge This matter comes before the Court on the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The plaintiff's complaint seeks both monetary and equitable relief from the defendants for claims involving the disciplinary proceedings related to the plaintiff's disbarment. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions

  5. Joseph N. Main P.C. v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

    168 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Tex. 1996)   Cited 10 times
    Striking class allegations for failing to comply with the Local Rules' requirement that such motions be filed within ninety days of filing of the complaint

  6. Price v. Cannon Mills

    113 F.R.D. 66 (M.D.N.C. 1986)   Cited 6 times

    Employees brought action against employer for sex discrimination in employment. Employees moved for class certification. The District Court, Gordon, Senior District Judge, held that: (1) employees failed to establish existence of class discriminated against and typicality of claims of represented parties, and, therefore, were not entitled to certification of class, and (2) motion for certification of classes other than sheet department class was not timely and was not pursued with due diligence,

  7. Hall v. Bio-Medical Application, Inc.

    671 F.2d 300 (8th Cir. 1982)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to strike class allegations due to plaintiffs' failure to comply with a local rule requiring that a class certification motion be filed within ninety days after the case commenced

  8. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 48,283 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

  9. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,889 times   1234 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"