context: As explained above, however, differences in Plaintiffs' disabilities do not prevent commonality because Plaintiffs' alleged harms are similar. Accommodations inquiries are not, as Defendants assert, unsuited to class actions.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 275 F.3d 868, 868
citation_a.parenthetical: finding that plaintiffs with widely different disabilities who were seeking accommodations in California's parole hearings satisfied commonality because of their shared harms
citation_a.sentence: See Davis, 275 F.3d at 868 (finding that plaintiffs with widely different disabilities who were seeking accommodations in California’s parole hearings satisfied commonality because of their shared harms); see also Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334, 345 (N.D.Cal.2008) (finding an argument concerning a need for “mini-trials” in an ADA case unpersuasive because “[t]he essence of defendants’ argument — that in order to prove the existence of the forest the plaintiffs must individually prove the existence of each tree — is anathema to the very notion of a class action”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 249 F.R.D. 334, 345
citation_b.parenthetical: finding an argument concerning a need for "mini-trials" in an ADA case unpersuasive because "[t]he essence of defendants' argument -- that in order to prove the existence of the forest the plaintiffs must individually prove the existence of each tree -- is anathema to the very notion of a class action"
citation_b.sentence: See Davis, 275 F.3d at 868 (finding that plaintiffs with widely different disabilities who were seeking accommodations in California’s parole hearings satisfied commonality because of their shared harms); see also Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334, 345 (N.D.Cal.2008) (finding an argument concerning a need for “mini-trials” in an ADA case unpersuasive because “[t]he essence of defendants’ argument — that in order to prove the existence of the forest the plaintiffs must individually prove the existence of each tree — is anathema to the very notion of a class action”).