Amend v. Great Western Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a class representative’s ignorance of the case is not a bar to certification unless it impairs the representative’s ability to vigorously prosecute the action
• concluding that plaintiff does not have to prove actual injury to recover statutory damages under the FCRA in general but distinguishing cases brought under section 1681i where plaintiff must prove actual damages to state a cause of action
• finding that a class representative was adequate despite not being “aware that his attorneys had filed certain motions” because “[u]nderstanding the minutia of a case is not a prerequisite to being a class representative”
• reaching a similar conclusion with respect to a FCRA claim premised on a violation of § 1681b(e)
• rejecting an argument that a class representative was inadequate because he could not show that he “recall[ed] the terms of a settlement for a case he was previously involved in, or that he was aware that his attorneys had filed certain motions in the current case”
• consider ing each Rule 23 requirement although the defendant did not challenge them all

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).