997 F. Supp. 2d 511 - Behnken v. Luminant Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The relevant statement in the proposed notice form states, “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are working on a contingency fee basis, which means that if there is no recovery, they receive no attorney’s fee[s].” Ps. App. 37 (bracketed material added). This language does not apprise potential opt-in plaintiffs that they may be required to pay taxable court costs if the judgment is unfavorable to them. Thus the proposed notice form is not completely accurate as to the potential liabilities for those who join the lawsuit, it omits information that would be necessary for someone to make an informed decision about whether to join the lawsuit, and the affirmative representation that plaintiffs’ attorneys are working on a contingency fee basis and that no recovery means no attorney’s fees could lead a potential opt-in plaintiff to believe that there would be no risk of incurring personal costs of any kind if the litigation were unsuccessful. Accordingly, the court sustains Luminant’s first objection to the extent that it directs that the proposed notice form be changed to read as follows: “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are working on a contingency fee basis, which means that if there is no recovery, they receive no attorney’s fees. You may, however, be required to pay your proportional share of taxable court costs if the plaintiffs receive an unfavorable decision.” This modification addresses the inaccuracy in the proposed notice while simultaneously addressing plaintiffs’ concern that individuals cons”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dunkel v. Warrior Energy Services, Inc.

2. “Although the Fifth Circuit has declined to adopt a specific test to determine when courts should exercise their discretion to facilitate notice or certify a collective action, this court has adopted the prevailing two-stage test.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arceo v. Orta

3. “Although the need for individual testimony may become apparent at a later stage of this lawsuit, it does not negate that plaintiffs have presented a 'factual nexus' that binds the named plaintiffs and the potential class members.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arceo v. Orta