Ugwunna v. National Academy of Sciences

How courts have described this case

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

• “[Cjourts have consistently certified classes where there was no evidence that the named plaintiff received non-public information from a corporate officer.”
• “[C]ourts have consistently certified classes where there was no evidence that the named plaintiff received non-public information from a corporate officer.”
• “Courts have routinely found a disqualifying unique defense where the potential named plaintiff has had a direct or personal relationship with a board member or officer of the issuing company.”
• “While the extent of non-reliance on [plaintiffs’] part will certainly be a fact question to be decided at trial, it is unlikely to significantly shift the focus of the litigation to the detriment of the absent class members.”
• “While the extent of any non-reliance on [plaintiffs’] part will certainly be a fact question to be decided at trial, it is unlikely to significantly shift the focus of the litigation to the detriment of the absent class members.”
• “While the extent of any non-reliance on [the part of lead plaintiffs] will certainly be a fact question to be decided at trial, it is unlikely to significantly shift the focus of the litigation to the detriment of the absent class members.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).