Dunham v. Ridgel

How courts have described this case

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

• considering “the ease of identifying its members and ascertaining their addresses, the facility of making service on them if joined, and their geographic dispersion”
• finding predominance requirement not met where class members could not establish their entitlement to back pay on a class-wide basis using generalized proof
• weighing in favor of joinder that “at least 81 percent of the class members reside within the same state” and that potential plaintiffs’ identities and contact information were readily available
• “While the number of class members is central to the Rule 23(a)(1) inquiry, number alone is not determinative.”
• numerosity not established for class of 258 where defendant could show that 74 percent presently worked at the same facility and at least 81 percent resided within the same state

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).