DONALD ROTUNDA v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even under the CPPA “the necessary vehicle for suits seeking class-wide damages remains Rule 23”
• finding that Rule 23 is “the time-tested framework [for] suits for damages by class-members ‘as representative parties’”
• explaining that the standing requirement, though not jurisdictional, because . D.C. courts are not organized under Article III, is nonetheless grounded in the “recognition that an adversary system can. best adjudicate real, not abstract, conflicts”
• expressing concern that the DCCPPA amendments at issue “were virtually silent on how broadly-contoured actions for damages are, to be regulated or managed”
• affirming dismissal because the plaintiff sought money damages for the general public under the DCCPPA without complying with the procedures of Rule 23
• expressing concern that the DCCPPA “is virtually silent on how broadly-contoured actions for damages are to be regulated or managed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).