Schaub v. Spen-Tech Machine Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that factual dissimilarities among class members’ claims do not, in and of themselves, warrant denial of class certification on commonality grounds
• stating “[damages] which can be handled separately after a trial” will not defeat predominance
• “when defendants’ conduct towards the proposed class is alleged to be uniform, the commonality requirement is met.”
• “where, as here, Plaintiffs allege a common course of conduct by Defendants that caused harm, class certification is proper.”
• “Before delving into the ‘rigorous analysis' required by Rule 23, a court first should consider whether a precisely defined class exists and whether the named plaintiffs are members of the proposed class”
• individual questions did not defeat class certification in TCE groundwater case and stating “[t]he Court concurs in the sound reasoning of those other courts, which had cases before them very similar to this one.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).