There is an interesting back and forth in the comments section over at Wage Law Blog on the recently published Dunbar case.
I had always read Sav-On to be a pro-discretion of the trial court case more than simply a pro-certification case. This opinion seems to bear that out. Otherwise, it's not (yet) earth shattering. Despite that, in my experience, judges have seen Sav-On simply as pro-certification.
Anyway, here comes my trademarked reserve: Sav-On is a supreme court case, so this one still has to stand up in that forum. What's more, one case doesn't make a trend. Stand by. In the meantime, don't assume this means anything.
P.S. Check out Sheppard Mullin's write up, taking a victory lap for instigating this "trend," even though Akin Gump was the Appellee's counsel. (Apparently, they filed a request for publication.)
Comments