Muhammed Abdullah v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that commonality. “does not.. .mean that every question of law or fact must be common to the class; all that Rule 23(a)(2) requires is a single significant question of law or fact” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• finding 18 commonality when there was a “significant question of law” faced by the class on the 19 legality of defendant’s policy
• finding 18 commonality when there was a “significant question of law” faced by the class on the 19 legality of defendant’s policy
• commonality can be satisfied by even 24 a “single significant question of law or fact” (cleaned up)
• commonality can be satisfied by even 21 a “single significant question of law or fact” (cleaned up)
• “[A]n error of law is a per se abuse of discrection.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).