9 Cited authorities

Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard
452 U.S. 89 (1981) Cited 1,419 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"
De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
342 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2003) Cited 548 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that late strategic efforts by the plaintiff weigh against a court exercising supplemental jurisdiction
Longcrier v. HL-A Co.
595 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (S.D. Ala. 2008) Cited 175 times
Holding that to deem the delay in ruling upon a motion for certification extraordinary "would be to opine that equitable tolling should be granted in every § 216(b) case as a matter of course during the pendency of a conditional class certification request, thereby transforming this extraordinary remedy into a routine, automatic one"
Kerce v. W. Telemarketing Corp.
575 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Ga. 2008) Cited 31 times
Concluding that there is nothing improper about employer gathering facts to support a defense by speaking with and securing declarations from employees
Austen v. Catterton Partners V, LP
831 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D. Conn. 2011) Cited 21 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "ex parte communications between defense counsel and putative class members - even ex parte settlement negotiations - are not abusive communications that warrant limitations absent indications in the record of the need for limitations."
Ojeda-Sanchez v. Farms
600 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (S.D. Ga. 2009) Cited 16 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding an employer's in-person solicitations coercive
Ross v. Wolf Fire Prot., Inc.
799 F. Supp. 2d 518 (D. Mass. 2011) Cited 13 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defense counsel "subvert[ed] the class action process, or show the bad faith typically present in cases in which broad protective orders . . . have been issued"
Ahle v. Veracity Research Co.
663 F. Supp. 2d 713 (D. Minn. 2009)
Civ. No. 09-42 (ADM/RLE). September 22, 2009 Donald H. Nichols, Nichols Kaster Anderson, Minneapolis, MN, Matthew H. Morgan, Paul J. Lukas, Reena I. Desai, Robert L. Schug, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs. Joseph M. Sokolowski, Krista A.P. Hatcher, Lindsay J. Zamzow, Fredrikson Byron, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant. ORDER RAYMOND ERICKSON, Magistrate Judge I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a general assignment
Section 201 - Short title
29 U.S.C. § 201 Cited 20,928 times 102 Legal Analyses
Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work

Wang v. The Hearst Corporation

9 Cited authorities

Holding that, in considering a proposal to certify a class, the district court's discretion is "bounded by the relevant provisions of the Federal Rules"

Holding that late strategic efforts by the plaintiff weigh against a court exercising supplemental jurisdiction

Concluding that there is nothing improper about employer gathering facts to support a defense by speaking with and securing declarations from employees

Holding "ex parte communications between defense counsel and putative class members - even ex parte settlement negotiations - are not abusive communications that warrant limitations absent indications in the record of the need for limitations."

Finding an employer's in-person solicitations coercive

Finding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defense counsel "subvert[ed] the class action process, or show the bad faith typically present in cases in which broad protective orders . . . have been issued"

Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work