King v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is improper for a court to assess “any aspect of the merits unrelated to a Rule 23 requirement”
• holding that a district court must make a 13 “definitive assessment of Rule 23 requirements” and “resolve[] factual disputes relevant to each Rule 23 requirement”
• holding that Faragher/Ellerth defense applied, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s demotion and reduction in salary, because employer “established that these actions were independent of [the supervisor’s] discriminatory harassment of [the plaintiff]”
• holding that “the obligation to make [Rule 23] determinations is not lessened by overlap between a Rule 23 requirement and a merits issue, even a merits issue that is identical with a Rule 23 requirement”
• holding that “the obligation to make [Rule 23] determinations is not lessened by overlap between a Rule 23 requirement and a merits issue, even a merits issue that is identical with a Rule 23 requirement”
• holding that “the obligation to make [Rule 23] determinations is not lessened by overlap between a Rule 23 requirement and a merits issue, even a merits issue that is identical with a Rule 23 requirement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).