Sherrod v. Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC

4 Citing cases

  1. Beatty v. Pruitthealth Inc.

    1:21-cv-818 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 22, 2024)

    Plaintiff may not bootstrap previously dismissed claims into the sole remaining count in this action.” Sonntag v. Balaam, 2010 WL 2990107, at *3 (D. Nev. May 6, 2010), report and recommendation adopted by 2010 WL 3210020 (D. Nev. Aug. 12, 2010); see also Sherrod v. Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC, 2016 WL 25979, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2016) (finding plaintiff could not “bootstrap her previously dismissed fraud and misrepresentation claims back into the case by arguing that her breach-of-contract claim depends upon discovering whether Enigma's cancellation procedure was deceptive.”).

  2. Schwebel Baking Co. v. FirstEnergy Sols. Corp.

    CASE NO. 4:17CV0974 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 21, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    This procedural posture is distinct from that of a motion to certify a class where the Court has at its disposal the facts generated by class discovery." Sherrod v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-36, 2016 WL 25979, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2016). Courts disfavor the practice of striking class allegations before the class-discovery stage.

  3. Oom v. Michaels Cos.

    CASE NO. 1:16-cv-257 (W.D. Mich. Jul. 19, 2017)   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses

    A court may strike class-action allegations before a motion for class certification if the complaint demonstrates that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met and discovery or factual development would not "alter the central defect in th[e] class claim." See e.g., Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943, 949 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting "[t]hat the motion to strike came before the plaintiffs had filed a motion to certify the class does not by itself make the court's decision reversibly premature" and affirming the district court's grant because it "cannot see how discovery or for that matter more time would have helped [the plaintiffs]"); Sherrod v. Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-36, 2016 WL 2597, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2016); Wright v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 09-15055, 2015 WL 1737386, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2015). When a defendant moves "to strike class action allegations on the basis that class certification is precluded as a matter of law, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the plaintiff will be unable to demonstrate facts supporting certification, even after discovery and the creation of a full factual record."

  4. Colley v. Procter & Gamble Co.

    Case No. 1:16-cv-918 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2016)   Cited 5 times
    In Colley, however, the plaintiffs had brought claims relating to thirteen different deodorant products, each of which had a distinct fragrance composition.

    Defining membership in Plaintiffs' putative class by injury and causation would require a mini-hearing on the merits of each case and ultimately redefine the class as those "entitled to relief." Sherrod v. Enigma Software Group USA, No. 2:13cv36, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2016) (striking fail-safe class). Such a class would be both "fail-safe" and defined by non-objective criteria.