Sentences with phrase «certification motion»

Effectively employing or challenging statistics can make a difference in winning or losing a class certification motion.

Judges hearing certification motions rarely consider the merits of the lawsuit.

The Good certification motion also highlights the difficulties that future class actions will have in attempting to address large - scale public interest social advocacy.

The Impact of Aggregate Assessments of Damages on Certification Motions Laura K. Fric and Timothy M. Morgan

On April 30, attorney Paul B. Maslo of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC scored a win in a class action certification motion in Vecchio, et.

[1] After setting out his new approach to assessing costs and acknowledging that it will likely yield lower costs orders, Justice Belobaba concludes that more modest orders may result «in leaner and more focused certification motions, a greater measure of predictability for the participants, and in the overall, the continuing viability of the class action vehicle.»

Defeated the most critical prong of a class certification motion which sought to certify a large group of salespersons in an action brought against a national furniture company.

On the initial certification motion, Superior Court Justice Paul Perell denied certification on two grounds.

CAOC Annual Convention, Winning Certification Motions in the Post Brinker Era — The Latest Cases, by Mike Arias November 16, 2013

Given Perell J.'s determination that the proposed class action against the settling defendants satisfied all of the certification criteria (albeit on a less strict evaluation than would be applied in a contested certification motion), it is more likely than not that the plaintiffs would be successful if they moved to certify against the Underwriter Defendants.

The original certification motion decision was not released until 2007, when Justice Cullity stated,

In virtually identical language in Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), Sankar v. Bell Mobility, Crisante v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Dugal v. Manulife and Rosen v. BMO Nesbitt Burns, Justice Belobaba excoriated class action lawyers for over-lawyering certification motions, unnecessarily lengthening the proceedings and generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and disbursements.

File the class certification motion simultaneously with the complaint:

Eleventh Circuit Sides with Wells Fargo on Post-Class Certification Motion to Compel Arbitration

The court rejected the class certification motion by the Salespeople, since the class could not allege violations of the state's independent contractor statute.

The Toronto Dominion Bank, 2007 ONCA 781 (CanLII), 87 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 23, the Court of Appeal stated it is crucial litigants receive a fair process on certification motions — particularly because a certification judge's conclusions are not easily set aside on appeal.

He has successfully defeated class certification motions and prevailed on summary judgment motions in class actions.

«The certification motion was straightforward only in the sense that there were no complex factual and legal issues and no expert evidence filed,» he wrote.

The cost award requested was calculated at 60 per cent of the reduced docketed time expended on the certification motion.

Deloitte also argued that the plaintiff's cost award should be reduced because there was divided success on the certification motion, as Deloitte had successfully argued that the first representative plaintiff, lawyer Shireen Sondhi, was unsuitable, and she was subsequently removed.

In his decision delivered on March 7, Justice Paul Perell of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice granted a reduced portion of the plaintiffs» request for costs on a partial indemnity basis for the certification motion.

Justice Perell wrote in his decision that «Deloitte's objections to Mr. Phillip's costs claim were very substantially weakened because Deloitte did not disclose how much time its lawyers expended on the run - up to and completion of the certification motion.»

Franco belatedly filed the certification motion, then sought to withdraw it, first with prejudice and then without prejudice.

The date for the certification motion has not yet been set.

At the end of these Reasons for Decision, I will discuss the advantages of the approach of completing the pleadings before the certification motion.

I foreshadow to say that completing the pleadings will influence the determination of the s. 5 (1)(a) criterion for certification and, in my opinion, facilitate the hearing of the certification motion.

[37] Class actions are subject to the Rules of Civil Procedure, and there is nothing in the Class Proceedings Act, 1992that precludes defendants from pleading before the certification motion.

[3] In resisting the motion, Mr. Pennyfeather's two major arguments raise doubts about the convention that a defendant in a class action is not required to deliver a pleading until after the certification motion.

As I will also explain in my Reasons for Decision, it is time to revisit the convention that defendants do not deliver a Statement of Defence before the certification motion.

The employees» class action claims against IQT and the other defendant alleged in the certification motion, include: wrongful dismissal, conspiracy, negligence, inducing breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

[10] My experience as a case management judge in class proceedings reveals to me that as a general rule, it would be preferable that pleadings be closed before the action moves to a certification motion.

[12] In the discussion that follows, I will also discuss the consequences to the certification motion of closing the pleadings.

[5] At the certification motion, the Defendant conceded that the Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim «pass [ed] over the cause of action and identifiable class criteria» and accepted that there were some common issues for this claim that could be certified (Motion judge's reasons, para. 15).

However, a certification motion is not a merits test, and it remains to be determined whether Thomson is a wrongdoer.

The plaintiff has applied for leave to appeal the split decision of the Divisional Court (upholding the denial of the certification motion) to the Court of Appeal.

On January 21, 2011, the Court of Appeal decision released its with respect to the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal the split decision of the Divisional Court (upholding the denial of the certification motion).

Vincent de l'Étoile, a partner in the litigation group at Langlois LLP in Montreal, says he believes it is usually a good idea for a defendant to put forward a record at the time of the certification motion.

At the certification motion, the plaintiffs in Brown had proposed a class definition consisting of employees who had worked for CIBC after 1996 and held the job titles of analyst, investment advisor, or associate investment advisor.

The Crown maintains the records are necessary for the «fair determination of the certification motion.»

I won't comment on the action further until it reaches a certification motion, but I've made the Statement of Claim available here.

Sayce says the relevance of ordering the records to be produced is at issue as a certification motion is not about the merits of the claim but asks, «Can it work as a class action?»

«This certification motion shows that employers who misclassify employees as contractors can have substantial liability towards those workers, no matter what the contract says,» said plaintiff class lawyer Andrew Monkhouse.

The Crown argues that the Youth Records are relevant to the certification motion with respect to whether J.K. was in secure isolation, the particulars of the institution and time spent in isolation and whether he is an «appropriate representative plaintiff» as well as to test his «credibility on the matters about which he deposed in his affidavit.»

Justice David Doherty in his decision said: «Like the courts below, I think the outcome of the certification motion turned on s. 5 (1)(c) of the CPA and, specifically, whether eligibility for overtime pay could be certified as a common issue.»

It deals with a certification motion in a securities Class Action, and has a number of interesting aspects to it (interesting, at least, to lawyers).

The Plaintiff settled costs with the Defendant Procom, agreeing to pay $ 60,000 for costs on the certification motion, payable within 30 days of the Plaintiff receiving the cost payment from Deloitte.

Conversely, defendants often use the certification motion as a test drive for the merits of the litigation, notwithstanding the focus on the certification motion ought to be whether the certification criteria are satisfied and the «some basis in fact» evidentiary standard in this regard is very low.