Weinger v. Macy

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that WARN Act claims were not common or typical at motion for class certification stage
• rejecting class certification because resolution of the common issue meant “that 10 individualized determinations of fact would need to be decided as to each DHL contractor relationship”
• noting “no reason” to address rule 23(b) requirements after finding “three of the four prerequisites” of Rule 23(a) were lacking; but electing to analyze class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (3)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).