Lavin v. Le Fevre

How courts have described this case

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

• consent predominated because the defendant obtained cell phone numbers “from a variety of sources over a period of time”
• “Although Rule 23(b)(2) classes need not meet the predominance and superiority requirements, ‘it is well established that the class claims must be cohesive.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).