Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, 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 the plaintiff’s state law claims did not predominate where they “essentially replicate[d] the [federal] claims”
• holding that “employees who insti‐ tute a collective action against their employer under the terms of the FLSA may at the same time litigate supplemental state law claims as a class action certified according to FRCP 23(b)(3)”
• holding that “employees who insti‐ tute a collective action against their employer under the terms of the FLSA may at the same time litigate supplemental state law claims as a class action certified according to FRCP 23(b)(3)”
• recognizing that the identity of the issues, the convenience to both plaintiffs and defendants of not having to htigate in multiple forums, and the economy of resolving all claims at once suggest that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is ordinarily appropriate.”’
• noting that notices sent in combined FLSA collective and Rule 23 class actions must contain opt-in and opt-out mechanisms
• holding class actions based on state employment laws under Rule 23 can 25 coexist with FLSA collective actions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).