⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

4 opinions for “Amber Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC”

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2016-05-13 · Published · cited 108× · 822 F.3d 269; 94 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1009; 2016 FED App. 0114P; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8799; 2016 WL 2802473
STRANCH, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KEITH, J., joined. CLAY, J. (pp. 294-304), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. OPINION STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case involves challenges to the settlement of a consumer class action. Amber Gascho and other Plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Global Fitness Holdings, LLC alleging that between 2006 and 2012 Global
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017-11-15 · Published · cited 59× · 875 F.3d 795
OPINION THAPAR, Circuit Judge. The contempt power ensures that the judiciary’s mandates are authoritative rather than advisory. But an imperious judiciary is just as problematic as a powerless one. So the contempt power is limited: A party cannot be-held in contempt unless it has violated a definite and spe
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2013-01-16 · Published · cited 35× · 918 F. Supp. 2d 708; 2013 WL 170112; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6596
OPINION AND ORDER GEORGE C. SMITH, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 61) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification or, in the Alternative, Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 73). These motions are fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES both motions. I. B
District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012-03-28 · Published · cited 52× · 863 F. Supp. 2d 677; 2012 WL 1048823; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42366
OPINION AND ORDER GEORGE C. SMITH, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Recommending Denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 48), and Defendant’s first Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 36).1 These matters are fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the