Richard Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiffs did not establish predominance because they “failed to provide a sufficient, or virtually any, analysis describing how the grouped state laws might apply to the facts of this case”
• applying Maniscalco when the third factor of the Restatement was the sole factor that weighed in favor of the law of state where the defendant was headquartered
• noting the various factual scenarios that could lead to overbilling a patient for clinical testing and concluding that individual inquiries are required to determine whether the alleged overbilling constituted unjust enrichment
• “[I]ndividual inquiries would be required to determine whether an alleged overbilling constituted unjust enrichment for each class member.”
• “Plaintiffs were unable to find established case law for Delaware, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming.”
• “New Jersey has adopted ‘the most significant relationship’ test set out in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws.” (citing Camp Jaycee, 962 A.2d at 459–60)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).