Sniezyk v. Stocker

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs had standing for recordkeeping, investment‐selection, and fail‐ ure‐to‐monitor claims because a common course of conduct affected all plan participants
• recognizing that defendants’ “concerns regarding the repre‐ sentation of absent class members might implicate class certi‐ fication or damages but are distinct from the requirements of Article III”
• holding that named plaintiffs who had invested in different funds than the class had standing where all of the funds were part of same “suite” of products, in which investing was “allegedly imprudent due to the same decisions or courses of conduct” of the defendants
• explaining that named plaintiffs established standing and that defendants’ “concerns regarding the representation of absent class members might implicate class certification or damages but are distinct from the requirements of Article III”
• explaining that named plaintiffs established standing and that defendants’ “concerns regarding the representation of absent class members might implicate class certification or damages but are distinct from the requirements of Article III”
• addressing “directly, as a question of jurisdiction[,]” an argument that plaintiffs’ lack of standing destroyed typicality

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).