Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allen v. Flight Services And Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

October 30, 2017

ANANAIS ALLEN, an individual, and AUSTIN CLOY, an individual, Plaintiffs,
v.
FLIGHT SERVICES AND SYSTEMS, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant.

          BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC Duncan C. Turner, LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. WHITMORE Daniel R. Whitmore, Attorney for Plaintiffs

          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP Jim Goh Attorneys for Defendant

          [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL AND REPRESENTATIVES

          HON. ROBERT S. LASNIK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Parties' Stipulated Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Counsel and Class Representatives (the "Stipulated Motion"). The Court has considered the Stipulated Motion, together with its supporting declarations and exhibits.

         I. MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION.

         UPON CONSIDERATION, the Court finds the Motion for Class Certification should be and hereby is GRANTED.

         The Court makes the following Finding with respect to the Stipulated Motion:

         A. Standard of Review

         A party seeking to certify a class must establish that the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 are met. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997). A court must engage in a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 are satisfied. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). However, the evidentiary showing need not be extensive. Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 (9th Cir. 1975).

         B. Plaintiffs have satisfied Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)

         To be certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs and the proposed Class must first satisfy all the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a):

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

         1. Numerosity.

         The Class's size is sufficiently numerous to meet the requirement of numerosity. There are, at least, hundreds of Class members in the Class. As a general rule a potential class of 40 members is considered impractical to join. Cox v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co.,784 F.2d 1546, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have met ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.