Richardson v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that requiring class members to give up their right to “maintain a Rule 23(b)(3) class action or any other type of class action seeking damages” was improper
• declining to conclude “that public policy requires plaintiffs to have standing here, notwithstanding the requirements of Article HI” but instead finding the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a likelihood of future harm
• “In 150 this district, courts have found that numerosity is satisfied when a proposed class has at least forty members . . . .”
• “[T]his factor never weighs against settlement: the lawyers who negotiated the settlement will rarely offer anything less than a strong, favorable endorsement.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).