In a school-desegregation case, to pick a classic 23(b)(2) scenario, all of the plaintiffs are relevantly affected by the defendant's actions in the same way, so one brief standing analysis could easily cover all of the plaintiffs.
Indeed, in light of the flexible nature of the prudential standing limitations, courts facing multiple-plaintiff cases with third-party standing issues could go further than just bypassing the prudential analysis for extra plaintiffs. Instead, a court might justifiably decide that all plaintiffs affirmatively satisfy the prudential requirements because one plaintiff satisfies them, as long as the extra plaintiffs' presence in the case would not add any complications.
Plaintiff, Country-Wide Insurance Company, brings this action for a declaration that Plaintiff is not obligated to pay claims for no- fault benefits submitted to Plaintiff in connection with an alleged motor vehicle accident in which defendant, Igenie F.
Plaintiff also alleges that Blenman received medical treatment from the Medical Provider Defendants, including New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Kings County Hospital Center, and that Blenman assigned the right to collect no-fault insurance benefits to those providers.
LEGAL COMMENTARY: The court noted that in this case, the Plaintiff
, in the original complaint, named "Jackson Hospital.
1999) (finding fraudulent joinder and denying motion to remand when the plaintiffs had no evidence to support the conclusory allegation in their complaint because a plaintiff may not "depriv[e] diverse defendants of a federal forum by mere conclusory allegations which have no basis in fact."); Poole v.
THE PLAINTIFF'S Complaint is the starting point for a defendant to remove a case to federal court, particularly when an out-of-state defendant seeks to remove a case to federal court on diversity jurisdiction grounds.
with three criteria: their motivation to make money, their
Among other reliefs, the plaintiffs
want a declaration that the EFCC's order sealing their business concerns and premises without regards to the laid down procedures is unlawful, unwarranted, illegal, overreaching and a clear abuse of office and privilege.
Specifically, the plaintiff
pointed to the fact that SSDI does not take into account an employer's duty to make reasonable accommodations.
was liable for the defendants' fees and costs because the plaintiff
's claims lacked merit and its conduct was unreasonable.
Eight of the plaintiffs
in the case were among about 1,000 employees nationwide who accepted the offer.