Putnam v. Davies

30 Citing cases

  1. Violette v. P.A. Days, Inc.

    214 F.R.D. 207 (S.D. Ohio 2003)   Cited 11 times

    The claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. SeePutnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D.Ohio 1996). Rather, " the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation."

  2. Intercommunity Justice & Peace Ctr. v. Registrar, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles

    440 F. Supp. 3d 877 (S.D. Ohio 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Instead, "the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the [d]efendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation." Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand , 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies , 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996) ). Additionally, although Rule 23(a)(2) speaks of "questions" in the plural, there need be only one question common to the class.

  3. Cmty. Refugee & Immigration Servs. v. Registrar, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles

    Case No. 2:18-cv-1189 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020)

    Instead, "the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the [d]efendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation." Bovee v. Coopers & Lyband, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996)). Additionally, although Rule 23(a)(2) speaks of "questions" in the plural, there need be only one question common to the class.

  4. Cervantes v. Sugar Creek Packing Co., Inc.

    210 F.R.D. 611 (S.D. Ohio 2002)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that factors which a court may consider include "the financial resources of class members."

    The claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. SeePutnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D.Ohio 1996). Rather, " the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation."

  5. Pund v. City of Bedford

    CASE NO. 1:16CV1076 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 28, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, the nature of the claims makes joinder impracticable, as the cost of litigating these constitutional claims would likely outweigh the monetary injuries suffered. Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S. D. Ohio 1996) (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 158-61 (1974)) (noting that litigating constitutional challenges is costly, and that class members suffering "the cost of a rental car for a few days" would be unlikely to bring suit). With inspection fees as low as $50 per inspection, "the financial disincentives to initiating a lawsuit such as this one create a significant hardship for prospective plaintiffs and warrant the conclusion that the questioned statutes would go unchallenged were a class not certified."

  6. Ball v. Kasich

    Case No. 2:16-cv-00282 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017)

    Instead, "the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation." Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996)); Mayo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 148 F.R.D. 576, 580 (S.D. Ohio 1993)). Although Rule 23(a)(2) speaks of "questions" in the plural, there need be only one question common to the class.

  7. Shreve v. Franklin County, Ohio

    Case No. 2:10-cv-644 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 14, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    However, the claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. Bovee v. Coopers Lybrand, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996)). Furthermore, there need only be one question common to the class.

  8. Goldson v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

    Case No. 2:08-cv-844 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 28, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Bovee v. Coopers Lybrand, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996)). Furthermore, there need only be one question common to the class.

  9. Ross v. Abercrombie Fitch Co.

    257 F.R.D. 435 (S.D. Ohio 2009)   Cited 30 times
    Finding "Plaintiff's purchase of stock six days after the Class Period" to be "irrelevant" and noting that "[i]t is not inconsistent with the pleadings for Plaintiff to have purchased stock after its price had been deflated by curative disclosures"

    The claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D.Oh.2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D.Ohio 1996)). Rather, " the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation."

  10. Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand

    216 F.R.D. 596 (S.D. Ohio 2003)   Cited 42 times
    Finding named representative could rely on the expertise of counsel

    The claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. SeePutnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D.Ohio 1996). Rather, " the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation."