Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Fulton

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning the court would be required to make individual determinations with respect to each class member as to whether the employee worked over forty hours per week, and therefore the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality requirement
• denying Plaintiff’s request to renew its motion for class certification after further discovery in a FLSA collective action on the basis that the case was four years old and that Plaintiff had had ample opportunity to engage in discovery in support of his Rule 23 motion.
• individual determinations required as to overtime exemption application for branch managers, “precisely the kind of the determinations that render certification inappropriate.”
• “The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the Rule 23(a) requirement of commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Therefore, it follows that the proposed class also fails to meet the more demanding requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).”
• “The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the Rule 23(a) requirement of commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Therefore, it follows that the proposed class also fails to meet the more demanding requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).