Finding on facts of that case that “when judged against the realistic, rather than theoretical, potential for recovery after trial, the settlement amount is extremely beneficial”
Holding that individual named plaintiffs had standing to assert claims in states in which purchases were made and where the plans reimbursed those purchases
Declining to consider whether former employees had standing under ERISA based on the “reasonable expectation” prong where the “[p]laintiffs admit[ted] that they [had] no reasonable expectation of returning to [the defendant] as employees.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,874 times 1249 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"