Alvarez v. Keystone Plus Construction Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a class satisfied the predominance requirement where “[the] theory of liability in this case is common to every class member”
• finding that possible recovery of liquidated damages for wage claims “would ultimately be somewhat discounted, given the uncertainty of recovering such damages and the time and money that it would have taken to litigate this case to a verdict.”
• crediting counsel’s representations that the parties “have engaged in significant informal discovery . . . and that this discovery has been sufficient to give them a reasonably accurate assessment of the case” in assessing whether a proposed class settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate
• “‘[T]he common issues need only be predominant, not dispositive of the litigation.’” (quoting Cohen v. Chilcott, 522 F. Supp. 2d 105, 116 (D.D.C. 2007))
• “[E]ven the minor differences between the class members—such as the amount of total damages—are susceptible to generalized proof since a common formula is used to calculate the individual damages.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).