42 Cited authorities

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
564 U.S. 338 (2011) Cited 6,629 times 505 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”
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,668 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
Myers v. Hertz Corp.
624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 1,218 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"
Staehr v. Hartford Financial Serv
547 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 861 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that matters judicially noticed by a court "are not considered matters outside the pleadings"
Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co.
54 F.3d 1207 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 1,271 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "to show relevancy, Trial Plaintiffs had to show that the proffered anecdotal witnesses were sufficiently similar to themselves so that the witnesses' testimony would have a tendency to show `standard [discriminatory] operating procedure' and a `regular rather than unusual practice' of discrimination."
Miles v. Merrill Lynch & Co.
471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 768 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"
Hoffmann v. Sbarro, Inc.
982 F. Supp. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) Cited 563 times
Holding there is “no question, therefore, that plaintiffs have shown a factual nexus between their situation and the situation of other current and former” employees where defendant admitted it had a uniform policy regarding them all
Moore v. Painewebber, Inc.
306 F.3d 1247 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 341 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, given "materially uniform misrepresentations," "an individual plaintiff's receipt of and reliance upon the misrepresentation may then be simpler matters to determine"
Iglesias-Mendoza v. La Belle Farm, Inc.
239 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 288 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that questions of liability concerning whether class members were supposed to be paid the minimum wage and for overtime "are about the most perfect questions for class treatment"
Hyman v. Hyman
502 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 271 times
Finding that this standard "complements but does not dilute the other terms of the provision, "fraud," "embezzlement" and "larceny" - all of which require a showing of actual wrong intent."
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,896 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 1133 - Claims procedure
29 U.S.C. § 1133 Cited 2,331 times 13 Legal Analyses
Detailing similar requirements
Section 254 - Relief from liability and punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Walsh-Healey Act, and the Bacon-Davis Act for failure to pay minimum wage or overtime compensation
29 U.S.C. § 254 Cited 713 times 44 Legal Analyses
Precluding compensation for certain travel that "occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities"
Section 2560.503-1 - Claims procedure
29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1 Cited 2,817 times 77 Legal Analyses
Adopting the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1
Section 778.114 - Fluctuating Workweek Method of Computing Overtime
29 C.F.R. § 778.114 Cited 383 times 70 Legal Analyses
Prescribing total hours, including overtime, as the divisor when employers pay by shift without regard to fluctuating hours

Scutts et al v. Wachovia Corporation et al

42 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 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 matters judicially noticed by a court "are not considered matters outside the pleadings"

Holding that district court must make a "definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements" and "resolve[] . . . factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement"

Holding there is “no question, therefore, that plaintiffs have shown a factual nexus between their situation and the situation of other current and former” employees where defendant admitted it had a uniform policy regarding them all

Holding that, given "materially uniform misrepresentations," "an individual plaintiff's receipt of and reliance upon the misrepresentation may then be simpler matters to determine"

Holding that questions of liability concerning whether class members were supposed to be paid the minimum wage and for overtime "are about the most perfect questions for class treatment"

Finding that this standard "complements but does not dilute the other terms of the provision, "fraud," "embezzlement" and "larceny" - all of which require a showing of actual wrong intent."

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"

Detailing similar requirements

Precluding compensation for certain travel that "occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities"

Adopting the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1

Prescribing total hours, including overtime, as the divisor when employers pay by shift without regard to fluctuating hours