28 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,611 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”
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,931 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
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,662 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
Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC
565 U.S. 368 (2012) Cited 645 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that "Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits"
Myers v. Hertz Corp.
624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 1,217 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have the discretion to certify a collective action by facilitating notice to potential plaintiffs of the "pendency of the action and of their opportunity to opt-in as represented plaintiffs"
Robidoux v. Celani
987 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 873 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that recipients of public assistance challenging delays by the Vermont Department of Social Welfare could proceed under the "inherently transitory" exception in part because "the Department will almost always be able to process a delayed application before a plaintiff can obtain relief through litigation"
Marisol A. v. Giuliani
126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 739 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class but suggesting that prior to trial the district court “ensure that appropriate subclasses are identified”
Consol. Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park
47 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 744 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "numerosity is presumed at a level of 40 members"
Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp.
109 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1997) Cited 496 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that in reviewing a state claim pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction, federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law
Beattie v. Centurytel
511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) Cited 305 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that possible recovery of roughly $124.68 per class member was too small to encourage individuals to bring suit, thereby making a class action a superior method of adjudicating the dispute
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,808 times 1232 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 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
47 U.S.C. § 227 Cited 5,642 times 733 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

Mey v. Frontier Communications Corporation

28 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 "Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits"

Holding that district courts have the discretion to certify a collective action by facilitating notice to potential plaintiffs of the "pendency of the action and of their opportunity to opt-in as represented plaintiffs"

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class but suggesting that prior to trial the district court “ensure that appropriate subclasses are identified”

Holding that "numerosity is presumed at a level of 40 members"

Holding that in reviewing a state claim pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction, federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law

Holding that possible recovery of roughly $124.68 per class member was too small to encourage individuals to bring suit, thereby making a class action a superior method of adjudicating the dispute

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"

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals