United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty

54 Citing briefs

  1. Chen et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company

    RESPONSE

    Filed June 9, 2015

    Even had Mr. Pacleb accepted Defendant’s individual Offer, Mr. Pacleb would have maintained a concrete interest in the outcome of this litigation with regard to Mr. Pacleb’s right to represent the putative class. Pitts, 653 F.3d at 1089 quoting Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 403. As discussed above, both the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit held that Mr. Pacleb’s class claim alone is enough to satisfy Article III standing requirements.

  2. Hernandez et al v. County of Monterey et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Rule 12

    Filed April 25, 2014

    Defendants also anticipate that Plaintiffs will argue that the circumstances in the instant case warrant the transitory claim exception as an exception to the mootness doctrine. See Garaghty, 445 U.S. at 404. However, the law is very clear that Garaghty does not apply where it is undisputed that Plaintiffs’ claims are mooted prior to the filing or granting of class 8 Hernandez, et al. v. County of Monterey, et al.

  3. K.C. et al v. Townsend et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition

    Filed September 14, 2009

    The Geraghty Court also emphasized the fact that other prisoners affected by the parole guidelines had moved to substitute, or intervene, as class representatives—which is precisely the case here. 445 U.S. at 396; see also Docs. 80-2 & 80-3.

  4. Weyandt v. Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Associations and its affiliates

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed October 15, 2019

    The named plaintiffs have therefore been put in the same position they would have been in had they been allowed to resign their union memberships at the time they notified PSCOA of their desire to do so. Due to this relief, we are not “capable of resolving” the present dispute because it is “unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.” Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 397; Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102-03. Plaintiffs have been made whole from the alleged violation of the CBA, and there is no more relief that can be proscribed for them by this Court.

  5. Mey v. Frontier Communications Corporation

    Memorandum in Support re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed October 16, 2013

    See id. at 1529-32 (discussing Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 100; Deposit Guaranty Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 100 S. Ct. 1166, 63 L. Ed. 2 d 427 (1980); and Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1975)). Thus, the Court in Genesis rejected various policy and other arguments, which were based on this prior case law, to hold the supposed impropriety of "picking off' representative plaintiffs in putative class actions has no vitality as a basis for refusing to dismiss a moot claim.

  6. Suquilanda v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re: 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document

    Filed February 10, 2012

    Id. at 1249 (citing U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 406 n.11 (1980)). D.

  7. Briggs v. United States of America et al

    Reply to Opposition 31

    Filed March 20, 2008

    Id. at 398-99, 100 S. Ct. at 1209-10 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Under Geraghty, if there is less than a likelihood of future occurrence as to the named plaintiff, then the class must already be certified in order to preclude dismissal of the entire claim.

  8. DL et al v. District of Columbia et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re Class Certification

    Filed November 30, 2005

    Therefore, absent class certification, the named plaintiffs may not be able to obtain the scope of the remedy requested on behalf of the class.16/ Fourth, class certification is necessary because the named plaintiffs’ claims are inherently of short duration (i.e., children ages three through five who have not been found by defendants) and will be mooted when defendants comply with their Child Find requirement as to each of them.17/ Without Case 1:05-cv-01437-RCL Document 22 Filed 11/30/2005 Page 23 of 25 17/(...continued) claims are moot because they are receiving some special education services. 18/ See Geraghty v. United States Parole Commission, supra, 445 U.S. at 398 (“When, however, there is no chance that the named plaintiff's expired claim will reoccur, mootness still can be avoided through certification of a class prior to expiration of the named plaintiff's personal claim”); Stewart v. Winter, 669 F.2d 328, 333-334 (5th Cir. 1982) (the “very prospect” that named plaintiffs would be released from county jail within less than year “supports class certification: while any individual prisoner’s claim for injunctive relief is in danger of becoming moot before the court can grant relief, class certification ensures the presence of a continuing class of plaintiffs with a live dispute * * *.”); La Duke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (the fact of certification will preserve a class's standing for injunctive relief even after the named individual representatives have lost the required "personal stake"); 1 Newberg on Class Actions, sec.

  9. Doe v. Trinity Logistics, Inc. et al

    ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss and/or to Strike Class Claims

    Filed September 18, 2017

    Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 561 F.2d 434, 453 (3d Cir. 1977); Geraghty v. United States Parole Comm'n, 579 F.2d 238, 252–53 (3d Cir.1978) vacated on other grounds, 445 U.S. 388, 402–03 (1980). Trinity has cited no cognizable authority that prevents the Plaintiff and the class from seeking issue certification at the appropriate time as alternative relief.

  10. A White And Yellow Cab, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint

    Filed May 24, 2017

    The Supreme Court has, at times, described mootness as “standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). But there are important differences between the two.