Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 11/24/2003

Vengurlekar v. Silverline Technologies, Ltd.

Citations

  • 220 F.R.D. 222
  • 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21318
  • 2003 WL 22801757

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that “the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representative’s claim will not bar class certification”
  • holding that “the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representative’s claim will not bar class certification”
  • holding that “the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representative’s claim will not bar class certification”
  • declining to certify a putative class of employees of a New Jersey-based employer where not all class members worked in New Jersey
  • “The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.”
  • “The adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scheindlin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.