Legal Opinion
Durant v. Servicemaster Co.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided June 10, 2002No. Civ.01-40007PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
GADOLA, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification [docket entry 49]. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e), the Court concludes that oral argument would not aid substantially in the disposition of this motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs’ motion.
I BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their second amended-complaint on April 8, 2002. Defendants are the ServiceMaster Company, TruGreen, Incorporated, and TruGreen Limited Partnership. Defendants are corporations incorporated under the law of Delaware.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Rosario v. LivaditisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
- Kelvin Highsmith, Marcita Highsmith, and Joseph Villasenor v. Chrysler Credit CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- In re Cardizem CD Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2001
- Kleiner v. First National Bank of AtlantaDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2008
- Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
- Fisher v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2003