United States ex rel. Mulhollen v. Cavell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant that employed and paid most of plaintiff class was “significant defendant” because it would be responsible for most of relief sought: payment of unlawfully withheld wages
• finding it \reasonably likely that more than two-thirds of the putative class members of the proposed class — all of whom work in New York — are citizens of New York.\
• finding absent defendant qualified as indispensable because [absent defendant] would undoubtedly be prejudiced if a judgment is rendered in this action in its absence, given that the complaint is directed towards [absent defendant]'s own compensation structure and policies.”
• considering affidavits provided by both parties in resolving a CAFA matter
• absentee owner-employer was a necessary party where complaint sought class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief from the owner of the workplace, even if ownership had changed
• “It is difficult to see how [plaintiff] could be accorded complete relief without [absent party], the entity that employs and, moreover, pays and makes charge backs to the wages of, members of the putative class.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).