Arnold Chapman v. First Index, Incorporated

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 plaintiff need not amend the complaint to redefine a proposed class—indeed a complaint need not even include a class definition
• noting that Rule 23(c)(1)(B) places the responsibility for defining the class on the Court, and that certification does not require amending the complaint
• noting that the obligation to define a class falls upon a judge in accordance with Rule 23(c)(1)(B)
• concluding a district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to allow the plaintiff to redefine the proposed class
• noting that “the obligation to define the class falls on the judge’s shoulders under FED. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B),” and “[t]he judge may ask for the parties’ help”
• noting that the plaintiff’s complaint is not even required to include a class definition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).