Cavallaro v. UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there had been no “prior abuse of the amendment process,” and “one last amendment should be permitted, if the plaintiffs are so minded”
• concluding that resolving unjust enrichment claims based on failure to pay overtime as required by CBA was preempted under the LMRA
• holding that claims for money had and received, quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, and conversion all depend on analysis of the CBA’s terms
• remarking that Supreme Court \has never fully integrated\ LMRA complete preemption cases into a unitary doctrine
• finding that “some direct employer needs to be identified before anyone in a group could be liable” on a joint-employer theory under the FLSA
• finding that “some direct employer needs to be identified before anyone in a group could be liable” on a joint-employer theory under the FLSA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).