Vairin & Co v. Hunt

How courts have described this case

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

• denying motion to strike part of reply brief where new arguments were sufficiently addressed in the motion to strike itself
• collecting cases and finding that the “heavy weight of authority” is in favor of the district court conducting a Daubert analysis at the class certification stage
• excluding the plaintiff’s proposed expert testimony as unreliable, in part because the expert “ha[d] not identified any particular principles or methodology he used in forming his opinions . . . [or] cite a single study, report or other source for his opinions”
• “Plaintiffs do not offer any response to this argument, and thus concede it.”
• “Plaintiffs do not offer any response to this argument, and thus concede it.”
• “plaintiffs’ statistical experts do little more than establish that African–American candidates are underrepresented in Amtrak’s hiring and promotion decisions . . . . This is precisely the sort of statistical evidence rejected as insufficient in Dukes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).