§Why CasetextPricing

Norman et al v. Dell, Inc. et al

Response in Opposition to Motion to Certify the Class 205 .

62 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation

    497 U.S. 871 (1990)   Cited 9,576 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit affidavits in support of standing when filed after summary judgment briefing and hearing were complete

  2. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling

    493 U.S. 165 (1989)   Cited 3,026 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district courts have discretion to implement § 216(b)

  3. 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

  4. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.

    253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,225 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a putative class did not meet the requirements of Rule 23(b) before discussing the elements of Rule 23.

  5. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.

    976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 1,623 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendants' statements emphasizing superior quality were material because "a reasonable jury could conclude that [the company] publicly released optimistic statements ... when it knew [its product] could not be built reliably"

  6. Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp.

    267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,004 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding as long as the EEOC and the company are aware of the nature and scope of the allegations, the purposes behind the administrative filing requirement are satisfied and no injustice or contravention of congressional intent occurs by allowing piggybacking

  7. In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc.

    75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,055 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that design and manufacturing differences across ten different models of the same product meant potentially varying results on strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and failure to warn claims

  8. Castano v. the Am. Tobacco Co.

    84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996)   Cited 1,015 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court had not engaged in a rigorous analysis of predominance—that is, whether a Rule 23(b) class type was appropriate

  9. Grayson v. K Mart Corp.

    79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 1996)   Cited 781 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an individual who did not file an EEOC charge may opt into an ADEA class action by "piggybacking" onto a timely charge filed by one of the named plaintiffs, provided that the claims of the named plaintiff and the piggybacking plaintiff arise out of similar discriminatory treatment in the same time frame

  10. Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.

    151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 694 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certification under Rule 23(b) was not appropriate because "plaintiffs' claims for compensatory and punitive damages must therefore focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole"

  11. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 62,284 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  12. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 35,135 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"

  13. Section 216 - Penalties

    29 U.S.C. § 216   Cited 16,462 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

  14. Section 653.045 - Records to be kept by employers; itemization of deductions from wages

    ORS § 653.045   Cited 11 times
    Requiring employers to keep records of the hours employees work

  15. Section 778.114 - Fluctuating Workweek Method of Computing Overtime

    29 C.F.R. § 778.114   Cited 384 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Prescribing total hours, including overtime, as the divisor when employers pay by shift without regard to fluctuating hours

  16. Section 839-020-0050 - Meal and Rest Periods

    Or. Admin. R. 839-020-0050   Cited 25 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (1) The purpose of this rule is to prescribe minimum meal periods and rest periods for the preservation of the health of employees. (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every employer shall provide to each employee, for each work period of not less than six or more than eight hours, a meal period of not less than 30 continuous minutes during which the employee is relieved of all duties. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, if an employee is not relieved of all duties for 30

  17. Section 839-020-0030 - Payment of Overtime Wages - Generally

    Or. Admin. R. 839-020-0030   Cited 20 times

    (1) Except as provided in OAR 839-020-0125 to 839-020-0130, all work performed in excess of forty (40) hours per week must be paid for at the rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay when computed without benefits of commissions, overrides, spiffs, bonuses, tips or similar benefits pursuant to ORS 653.261(1). Similar benefits include, but are not limited to, discretionary bonuses, gifts, profit sharing, thrift and savings program, trusts, reimbursements for expenses, holiday

  18. Section 778.119 - Deferred commission payments-general rules

    29 C.F.R. § 778.119   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Establishing apportionment of commissions back over the workweeks of the period in which it was earned

  19. Rule 32 - Class Actions

    Or. R. Civ. P. 32   Cited 6 times

    (A) Requirement for class action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if: (1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) There are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (4) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and (5) In an action for damages