13 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,946 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
Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin
417 U.S. 156 (1974) Cited 3,760 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 3,049 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that " common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominate[d]" over "idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws" where a nationwide class of minivan buyers’ claims turned on "questions of [the manufacturer’s] prior knowledge of the [vehicle’s] deficiency, the design defect, and a damages remedy"
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n
688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) Cited 1,122 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a settlement must stand or fall in its entirety because a district court cannot "delete, modify or substitute certain provisions"
In re Tableware Antitrust Litigation
484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) Cited 479 times
Holding that this factor militates in favor of settlement approval
Satterfield v. Simon Schuster
569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 418 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FCC's interpretation that a text message is a "call" under the TCPA is reasonable
Syncor v. Cardinal
516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 320 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that, where parties “reached an enforceable settlement agreement subject to court approval,” defendant could not withdraw from agreement even before court approval
Dukes v. Wal-Mart
509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 179 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding those class members "who were no longer Wal-mart employees at the time Plaintiffs' complaint was filed" would not possess standing to pursue injunctive relief as they would not benefit from the injunction
Armstrong v. Board of School Directors
616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) Cited 255 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that notice sent out twelve days before fairness hearing was not a violation of due process
Celano v. Marriott Intern., Inc.
242 F.R.D. 544 (N.D. Cal. 2007) Cited 79 times
Noting "courts generally find that the numerosity factor is satisfied if the class comprises 40 or more members and will find that it has not been satisfied when the class comprises 21 or fewer."
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"
Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
47 U.S.C. § 227 Cited 5,656 times 733 Legal Analyses
Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals

Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

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 individual notice to class members identifiable through reasonable efforts is mandatory in (b) actions

Holding a settlement must stand or fall in its entirety because a district court cannot "delete, modify or substitute certain provisions"

Holding that this factor militates in favor of settlement approval

Holding that the FCC's interpretation that a text message is a "call" under the TCPA is reasonable

Finding that, where parties “reached an enforceable settlement agreement subject to court approval,” defendant could not withdraw from agreement even before court approval

Finding those class members "who were no longer Wal-mart employees at the time Plaintiffs' complaint was filed" would not possess standing to pursue injunctive relief as they would not benefit from the injunction

Holding that notice sent out twelve days before fairness hearing was not a violation of due process

Noting "courts generally find that the numerosity factor is satisfied if the class comprises 40 or more members and will find that it has not been satisfied when the class comprises 21 or fewer."

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