§Why CasetextPricing

Rapoport-Hecht v. Seventh Generation, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 25 MOTION to Strike Document No. 1 Defendant Seventh Generation Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Class Allegations

58 Cited authorities

  1. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

    564 U.S. 338 (2011)   Cited 6,609 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”

  2. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

    569 U.S. 27 (2013)   Cited 2,217 times   232 Legal Analyses
    Holding that at the class certification stage, "any model supporting a plaintiff's damages case must be consistent with its liability case"

  3. Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds

    568 U.S. 455 (2013)   Cited 1,806 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding that certain merits questions “should not be resolved in deciding whether to certify a proposed class,” but are “properly addressed at trial or in a ruling on a summary-judgment motion”

  4. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 5,661 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

  5. Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York

    98 N.Y.2d 314 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 3,358 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disclaimers "do not establish a defense as a matter of law"

  6. Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co.

    471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 767 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court must make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements" and "resolve[] . . . factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement"

  7. 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”

  8. Teamsters v. Bombardier

    546 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 446 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the “preponderance of the evidence standard applies to evidence proffered to establish Rule 23's requirements”

  9. Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp.

    778 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2015)   Cited 195 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that individualized damages determinations alone did not preclude class certification under the predominance inquiry

  10. Chen–Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

    877 F. Supp. 2d 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a motion to strike class allegations as premature if it does not “address[] issues separate and apart from the issue that will be decided on a class certification motion”

  11. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 34,802 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"

  12. Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200   Cited 17,785 times   315 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting unlawful business practices

  13. Section 1750 - Title of act

    Cal. Civ. Code § 1750   Cited 2,660 times   67 Legal Analyses

    This title may be cited as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Ca. Civ. Code § 1750 Added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1550.

  14. Section 815 ILCS 505/1

    815 ILCS 505/1   Cited 2,165 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Defining "consumer" as "any person who purchases or contracts for the purchase of merchandise not for resale in the ordinary course of his trade or business but for his use or that of a member of his household"

  15. Section 501.201 - Short title

    Fla. Stat. § 501.201   Cited 971 times   8 Legal Analyses

    This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act." Fla. Stat. § 501.201 s. 1, ch. 73-124.

  16. Section 42-110a - Definitions

    Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a   Cited 974 times   7 Legal Analyses

    As used in this chapter: (1) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Consumer Protection; (2) "Documentary material" means the original or a copy of a book, record, report, memorandum, paper, communication, tabulation, map, chart, photograph, mechanical transcription, or other tangible document or recording, wherever situate; (3) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, limited liability company, trust, partnership, incorporated or unincorporated association, and any other legal entity; (4)

  17. Section 201-1 - Short title

    73 Pa. Stat. § 201-1   Cited 640 times   12 Legal Analyses

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law." 73 P.S. § 201-1 1968, Dec. 17, P.L. 1224, No. 387, § 1. Reenacted 1976, Nov. 24, P.L. 1166, No. 260, § 1, imd. effective.

  18. Section 51:1401 - Short title

    La. Stat. tit. 51 § 1401   Cited 559 times   1 Legal Analyses

    This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law." La. R.S. § 51:1401 Added by Acts 1972, No. 759, §1. Added by Acts 1972, No. 759, §1.

  19. Section 19.86.010 - Definitions

    Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010   Cited 329 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining "trade" or "commerce" as "the sale of assets or services, and any commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of the state of Washington"

  20. Section 407.010 - Definitions

    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010   Cited 275 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Defining "Merchandise" for purposes of the MPA as "any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate or services"