Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing cases addressing number of uninjured class members sufficient to preclude a finding of predominance
• denying Rule 23(b)(2) certification where plaintiff’s claim for “money damages [is] at the heart of this case” and plaintiff failed to specify the form of injunctive relief it was seeking
• “the Court agrees with other courts that the Rule calls for careful and searching analysis of all evidence with respect to whether Rule 23’s certification requirements have been met, including expert opinions”
• “The issue here, however, is not whether to offset harms in one market with benefits in another, but whether to count benefits against harms in the same market . . . . [T]he cases that do indicate that the benefits must be factored into assessments of harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).