Legatus v. Sebelius

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that when a statute-of-limitations defense “raises substantial individual questions that vary among class members,” such questions may defeat predominance
• decertifying Rule 23(b)(2) class due to “the difficulty of applying [] individualized factors” and the lack of “judicial economy [and] fair[ness]”
• decertifying class where plaintiffs’ plan called for trial on “overall liability” only
• utilizing questionnaires at the claims stage eviscerated the role of the statute of limitations defense, which was not based on “easily verifiable ‘objective’ criteria.”; noting the “futility of reliance on questionnaires [given the] complex individualized inquiry” at issue
• “Although common issues must predominate for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), no such requirement exists under 23(b)(2
• in evaluating 12 whether to decertify the class, the court applies the same standard used in deciding 13 whether to certify the class in the first place

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).