735 F. Supp. 2d 421 - Lang v. DirecTV, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 218 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Jones v. Bock
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first determination is made at the so-called “notice stage.” At the notice stage, the district court makes a decision-usually based only on the pleading and any affidavits which have been submitted whether notice of the action should be given to potential class members. Because the court has minimal evidence, this determination is made using a fairly lenient standard, and typically results in “conditional certification” of a representative class. If the district court “conditionally certifies” the class, putative class members are given notice and the opportunity to “opt-in.” The action proceeds as a representative action throughout discovery. The second determination is typically precipitated by a motion for “decertification” by the defendant usually filed after discovery is largely complete and the matter is ready for trial. At this stage, the court has much more information on which to base its decision, and makes a factual determination on the similarly situated question. If the claimants are similarly situated, the district court allows the representative action to proceed to trial. If the claimants are not similarly situated, the district court de-certifies the class, and the opt in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. The class representatives—i.e. the original plaintiffs—proceed to trial on their individual claims ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]ith regard to DirecTV, Plaintiffs . . . allege that DirecTV controlled their daily routines. They allege that DirecTV set the rate of compensation for each job, monitored their performance, and ultimately controlled their receipt of wages. Moreover, they claim that DirecTV and JP&D conducted background checks and drug tests at facilities of their choice. Humphreys also alleges in his declaration that he was required to wear a DirecTV uniform, give clients DirecTV paperwork, and have a DirecTV logo on his vehicle. . .. The allegations of DirecTV’s control over the technicians, including control of their compensation, work assignments, and uniforms, all tend to indicate that the plaintiffs were employees of DirecTV.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“challenge on the pleadings [is an] end-run [around] the certification process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.