Corthorn v. Cleghorn

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that courts had certified classes smaller than the 51 persons at issue in that case
• summarizing that there can be no doubt that it is proper to allow discovery to determine whether the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied and “ordinarily [such] determination should be predicated on more information than the pleadings will provide”
• compiling cases holding Rule 23’s numerosity requirement satisfied because, where some class members are still employed by the defendant, “concern regarding employer retaliation or reprisal renders individual joinder less practicable”
• considering the financial resources of the putative class members, who were upper-level managers
• numbers of potential plaintiffs and difficulties in identifying them are relevant to the “numerosity” requirement
• considering the judicial economy in avoiding a multiplicity of suits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).