Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Chavez v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp.

Case No. 19-cv-01353-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Chavez v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp.

4 Citing cases

  1. Hyneman v. PRA Events Inc.

    No. CV-23-00497-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz. Jan. 23, 2025)

    Cooley v. Air Methods Corp., No. CV-19-00850-PHX-DLR, 2020 WL 9311858, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2020); see also Arends v. Select Med. Corp., No. CV 20-11381, 2021 WL 4452275, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2021) (“This Court will follow the thirteen other districts that have held that Bristol-Myers does not apply to FLSA actions.”); Haro v. Walmart, Inc., No. 121CV00239ADASKO, 2023 WL 2239333, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023) (same); Chavez v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp., No. 19-cv-01353, 2020 WL 4505482, at *5-7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020) (finding Bristol-Myers does not extend to FLSA actions because courts can assert pendant jurisdiction over claims by out-of-state plaintiffs); Swamy v. Title Source, Inc., No. C 17-01175, 2017 WL 5196780, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2017) (Determining that applying Bristol-Myers to FLSA collective claims “would splinter most nationwide collective actions” and “greatly diminish the efficacy of FLSA collective actions as a means to vindicate employees' rights.”).

  2. Gillespie v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc.

    No. CV-21-00940-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2023)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Compare Kurtz v. RegionalCare Hospital Partners, Inc, 2021 WL 6246619, at *5-6 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2021); Carlson v. United Nat. Foods, Inc., 2021 WL 3616786, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2021); McNutt v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., 2020 WL 3819239, at *7-9 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2020) with Arends v. Select Med. Corp., 2021 WL 4452275, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2021); Pavloff v. Cardinal Logistics Mgmt. Corp., 2020 WL 6828902, at *4 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2020); Cooley v. Air Methods Corp., 2020 WL 9311858, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 25, 2020); Chavez v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp., 2020 WL 4505482, at *5-7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020); Seifert v. Qwest Corp., 2018 WL 6590836, at *1-4 (D. Mont. Dec. 14, 2018); Swamy v. Title Source, Inc., 2017 WL 5196780, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2017); Thomas v. Kellogg Co., 2017 WL 5256634, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2017). Moreover, it is well-settled that the Court has specific personal jurisdiction in this matter over claims against Cracker Barrel because there are allegations by a named plaintiff who worked in an Arizona restaurant.

  3. LeGrand v. Abbott Labs.

    655 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Cal. 2023)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pled the scienter and intent elements of a fraud claim when she alleged that "[Defendant] knew the statements were misleading or acted recklessly since Defendant is a 'large sophisticated company that holds itself out as hav[ing] expert knowledge regarding the impact of consuming the Products' and that [Defendant] intends consumers to rely on their misrepresentations 'as evidenced by the intentional and conspicuous placement' of the misrepresentations on the food labels"

    Courts have also suggested that nonresident, named plaintiffs might not need to establish personal jurisdiction, or at least that exercise of pendent personal jurisdiction may be appropriate, where jurisdiction is based on a federal question. See Allen v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-01279-WHO, 2019 WL 5191009 at *2, n.4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2019) ("Most courts that have declined to apply Bristol-Myers to class actions have done so in part because of the presence of a federal claim"); Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC, 287 F. Supp. 3d 840, 859 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ("Therefore, where a federal court presides over litigation involving a federal question, the due process analysis does not incorporate the interstate sovereignty concerns that animated Bristol-Myers and which may be decisive in a state court's analysis."), on reconsideration, 438 F. Supp. 3d 1017, 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction because the case involved only diversity jurisdiction); Chavez v. Stellar Managment Grp. VII, LLC, No. 19-CV-01353-JCS, 2020 WL 4505482, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020) (finding that Bristol-Myers does not apply to federal courts applying federal law and exercising pendent jurisdiction in a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act).

  4. Wilkerson v. Walgreens Specialty Pharm.

    637 F. Supp. 3d 718 (D. Ariz. 2022)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that the court lacks specific jurisdiction over non-resident opt-in class members' FLSA claims unrelated to defendants' alleged conduct in the forum

    Cooley v. Air Methods Corp., No. CV-19-00850-PHX, 2020 WL 9311858, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 25, 2020); Chavez v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp., No. 19-cv-01353, 2020 WL 4505482, at *5-7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020); Seiffert v. Qwest Corp., No. CV-18-70-GF, 2018 WL 6590836, at *1-4 (D. Mont. Dec. 14, 2018); Swamy v. Title Source, Inc., No. C 17-01175, 2017 WL 5196780, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2017); Thomas v. Kellogg Co., No. C13-5136, 2017 WL 5256634, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2017). Bethel v. BlueMercury, Inc., No. 21 Civ. 2743, 2022 WL 3594575 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2022); Speight v. Lab. Source, LLC, NO. 4:21-CV-112, 2022 WL 1164415 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2022); Bone v. XTO Energy, Inc., 561 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (D.N.M. 2021).