Arthur Fallick v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company Nationwide Life Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a class representative must demonstrate “individual standing vis- a-vis the defendant; he cannot acquire such standing merely by virtue of bringing a class action”
• holding that once a “class representative establishes his individual standing to sue,” the issue of whether he can represent the putative class “depends solely on whether he is able to meet the additional criteria encompassed in Rule 23”
• determining that “whether a plaintiff will be able to represent the putative class, including absent class members, depends solely on whether he is able to meet the additional criteria encompassed in [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] Rule 23”
• noting the district court correctly determined the plaintiff had standing before moving to representation of the absent class members
• disagreeing with determination that plaintiff could not represent a class of participants invested in plans other than his own
• explaining that an individual in one ERISA benefit plan has standing to represent a class of participants in numerous other plans other than his own, if the gravamen of the plaintiffs challenge is to the general practices which affect all of the plans

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).