Rollins v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the plaintiff consumers in various class actions “allege that they paid a premium for ‘flusha-ble’ wipes” in part because the wipes were advertised as “flushable”
• noting that when deciding whether to stay or dismiss, “the paramount concern is that the deferral not work as a time-bar” (quoting Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1996))
• discussing the preemption of New York’s prohibition on class actions seeking statutory damages by the federal rules
• referring “[t]he issue of an appropriate definition of ‘flushable’ wipes and related issues” to the FTC and staying the case pending those proceedings
• staying its decision on class certification, but noting that it “would give favorable consideration to certifying a 23(b)(2
• finding commonality where plaintiffs alleged a price premium injury stemming from the labeling of wipes as “flushable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).