LEIMKUEHLER v. AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 1:10-cv-0333-JMS-TAB. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20120106886
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, [dkt. 91], which the Court now DENIES AS MOOT given the Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. See Lady Di's, Inc. v. Enhanced Servs. Billing, Inc., 654 F.3d 728 , 730 (7th Cir. 2011) ("[B]ecause we reject plaintiff's theory of the case . . ., we affirm the district court's denial of class certification because common issues do not predominate over indiv
Summary: ORDER JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, [dkt. 91], which the Court now DENIES AS MOOT given the Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. See Lady Di's, Inc. v. Enhanced Servs. Billing, Inc., 654 F.3d 728 , 730 (7th Cir. 2011) ("[B]ecause we reject plaintiff's theory of the case . . ., we affirm the district court's denial of class certification because common issues do not predominate over indivi..
More
ORDER
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, [dkt. 91], which the Court now DENIES AS MOOT given the Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. See Lady Di's, Inc. v. Enhanced Servs. Billing, Inc., 654 F.3d 728, 730 (7th Cir. 2011) ("[B]ecause we reject plaintiff's theory of the case . . ., we affirm the district court's denial of class certification because common issues do not predominate over individual issues, as required for a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).").
Source: Leagle
