Andelman v. Getz

How courts have described this case

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

• finding typicality even where class representatives “did not purchase . . . over the last several years” like other plaintiffs
• appointment of five firms would not serve to streamline proceedings nor would it introduce efficiencies into case management
• “To satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that class- wide injury or ‘impact’ is capable of proof at trial through evidence that is common to the class rather than individual to its members.”
• “ ‘An issue central to the validity of each one of the claims in a class action, if it can be resolved in one stroke, can justify class treatment.’ ” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Butler v. Sears. Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796, 801 (7th Cir. 2013)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).