Legal Opinion
Vince Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided July 28, 2015No. 15-1776PublishedCited by 297 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
We agreed to hear this appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which permits interlocutory review of orders granting or denying class action certification, to address whether Rule 23(b)(3) imposes a heightened “ascertainability” requirement as the Third Circuit and some district courts have held recently. See, e.g., Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir.2013). In this case, the plaintiff alleges consumer fraud by the seller of a dietary supplement, and the district court certified a plaintiff class. The court found that the proposed class satisfies…
2Cases cited70 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Eisen v. Carlisle & JacquelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by297 opinions
- Mulvania v. Sheriff of Rock Island CountyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017
- Clarisha Benson v. Fannie May Confections BrandsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019
- Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. PetrobrasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2017
- Robert Briseno v. Conagra Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Michael Beckem v. Indiana Family and Social SerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2016
292 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.