Holtsinger v. California

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “it is simply not relevant to the Rule 23(b)(1)(B) inquiry” that plaintiffs’ claims “present individual issues”
• noting that the similarity between the claims and defenses of the plaintiff and those of the class “does not have to be perfect.”
• finding that a Section 1132(a)(2) claim alleging a breach of fiduciary duty “clearly satisfied” Rule 23(b)(1)(B)
• finding that numerosity was “plainly satisfied . . . since ERISA 502(a)(2) claims are brought on behalf of a Plan, and over 10,000 people were invested in the Schering-Plough Stock Fund”
• finding that although ERISA Section 410(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1110(a), prohibits agreements that diminish the statutory obligations of a fiduciary, a release that settles an individual dispute does not alter a fiduciary’s statutory duties and thus, is enforceable
• finding no conflict between the named class members and the class which they sought to represent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).