Vega v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that to prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, “sufficient specification of the essential terms.”
• holding that, where the trial court’s entire rule 23 analysis consisted of one conclusory sentence, “[t]he district court's omission of an independent and substantial, let alone rigorous, analysis of Rule 23(b)(3
• holding that CAFA jurisdiction survived denial of class certification
• writing that a lead plaintiff “bears the burden of making some showing” that the class is too numerous for individual claims (emphasis in original)
• explaining that “conflat[ing] the commonality determination with a review for predominance pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)” is “a clear misreading of Rule 23” and ground for reversal
• finding that, while a plaintiff “need not show the precise number of members in the class,” the plaintiff must “bear[ ] burden of making showing . . . that the class actually certified meets the numerosity requirement.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).