Legal Opinion
Agostino v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided February 11, 2009No. Civ. No. 04-4362 (SRC)PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CHESLER, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons in the United States who allege they have been improperly billed by Quest or its outside debt collection agencies, as well as certification of four subclasses: two subclasses seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, and two subclasses seeking monetary remedies. Plaintiffs also argue that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act should be applied to the class and all subclasses. As…
2Cases cited79 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States Parole Commission v. GeraghtySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. ShuttsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
- Snyder v. FARNAM COMPANIES, INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2011
- Arcand v. Brother International Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2009
- Maniscalco v. Brother International (USA) Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- ARLANDSON v. Hartz Mountain Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2011
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.