Legal Opinion
Garrish v. United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided July 2, 2001No. Civ 00-40291PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
GAD OLA, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [docket entry 57], Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e), the Court concludes that a hearing would not aid in the disposition of this motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will conditionally deny Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ renewal of this motion after the close of discovery.
I BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are employees of Defendant General Motors Corporation (“GM”) who work at GM’s Truck and Bus facility (“the facility”) in Pontiac, Michigan. (C. 1 at ¶¶4,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- In Re American Medical Systems, Inc. Pfizer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Robert D. Sprague, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- 12 Fair empl.prac.cas. 451, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,741 John Senter, Cross-Appellee v. General Motors Corporation, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Liggett Group, Inc. v. EngleDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
- Carson P. ex rel Foreman v. HeinemanDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 2007
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 2012
- Brooks v. Norwest Corp.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2004
- Gawry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2009
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.