Perrine v. Mossinghoff

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that typicality test met where the proposed class members assert rights to health care benefits and rejecting the defendant’s argument that typicality is absent where “damages may vary between the claimants____”
• finding that the plaintiffs satisfied their burden for class certification under 23(b)(1
• rejecting argument that “delay in bringing this motion is clear evidence” negating “irreparable injury”; “due to the nature of the harm, the threat of injury is ever present”
• the commonality test was met where plaintiffs, although asserting claims under various agreements for “varying amounts of damages,” all challenged the decision to alter retirement healthcare benefits
• “The numerosity requirement mandates that the joinder of all plaintiffs be impracticable—not impossible.”
• “The numerosity requirement mandates that the joinder of all plaintiffs be impracticable—not impossible.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).