Yang’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Bjecause we can discern no principled reason to hold otherwise, we hold that where class certification has been denied solely on the basis of the lead plaintiffs’ deficiencies as class representatives, and not because of the suitability of the claims for class treatment, American Pipe tolling applies to subsequent class actions. Since American Pipe, it has been well-established that would be class members are justified — even encouraged — in relying on a class action to represent their interests with respect to a particular claim or claims, and in refraining from the unnecessary filing of repetitious claims. The policy objectives of the class action device — efficient deployment of court resources and the ability to consolidate claims which would otherwise be too small to warrant individual lawsuits — continue to obtain after the rejection by a court of the proposed class representatives. Drawing the line arbitrarily to allow tolling to apply to individual claims but not to class claims would deny many class plaintiffs with small, potentially meritorious claims the opportunity for redress simply because they were unlucky enough to rely upon an inappropriate lead plaintiff. For many, this would be the end result, while others would file duplicative protective actions in order to preserve their rights lest the class representative be found deficient under Rule 23. Either of these outcomes runs counter to the policy behind Rule 23 and, indeed, to the reasoning employed by the S”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 731 F. Supp. 2d 850 - Sawyer v. Atlas Heating & Sheet Metal Works, Inc. · 925 F. Supp. 2d 875 - Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

2. “While Griffin’s denial of tolling for all sequential class action plaintiffs has the virtue of clarity and ease of application, it is also characterized by a rigidity which we reject for at least three reasons. First, by its terms, Korwek invited refinement, and Griffin in effect bootstrapped Korwek’s limited holding to be a blanket prohibition on sequential class actions. Moreover, it did so without analysis. Second ..., to the degree Griffin relied on Bobbin , that foundation has eroded because the Ninth Circuit has since held that at least in certain circumstances, individuals whose claims were tolled by an earlier class action can aggregate their claims in a subsequent class suit. Third, ... it would be at odds with the policy undergirding the class action device, as stated by the Supreme Court, to deny plaintiffs the benefit of tolling, and thus the class action mechanism, when no defect in the class itself has been shown.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 925 F. Supp. 2d 875 - Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

3. “[gjiven that American Pipe tolling would unquestionably apply were the plaintiffs here to bring individual actions, it would be at odds with the policy undergirding the class action device, as stated by the Supreme Court, to deny plaintiffs the benefit of tolling, and thus [deny them] the class action mechanism, when no defect in the class itself has been shown.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 738 F. Supp. 2d 1180 - In Re Farmers Insurance Co., Inc., FCRA Litigation