Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
BETTY DUKES V WAL-MART --SCOTUS ORAL ARGUMENTS TRANSCRIPT 3-29-2011 - DISCRMINATION LAWSUIT

BETTY DUKES V WAL-MART --SCOTUS ORAL ARGUMENTS TRANSCRIPT 3-29-2011 - DISCRMINATION LAWSUIT

Ratings: (0)|Views: 112|Likes:
Published by 83jjmack
LANDMARK CASE NOW BEFORE THE US SUPREME COURT
LANDMARK CASE NOW BEFORE THE US SUPREME COURT

More info:

Published by: 83jjmack on Mar 31, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/31/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
510152025
Official - Subject to Final Review
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x3 WAL-MART STORES, INC., :4 Petitioner : No. 10-277v. :6 BETTY DUKES, ET AL., :7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x8 Washington, D.C.9 Tuesday, March 29, 201111 The above-entitled matter came on for oral12 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States13 at 10:19 a.m.14 APPEARANCES:THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., ESQ., Los Angeles,16 California; on behalf of Petitioner.17 JOSEPH M. SELLERS, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of18 Respondents.19212223241
Alderson Reporting Company
 
 
510152025
Official - Subject to Final Review
1 C O N T E N T S2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE3 THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., ESQ.4 On behalf of the Petitioner 3ORAL ARGUMENT OF6 JOSEPH M. SELLERS, ESQ.7 On behalf of the Respondents 248 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF9 THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 511112131416171819212223242
Alderson Reporting Company
 
510152025
Official - Subject to Final Review
1 P R O C E E D I N G S2 (10:19 a.m.)3 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear argument4 first this morning in Case 10-277, Wal-Mart Stores v.Dukes.6 Mr. Boutrous.7 ORAL ARGUMENT OF THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR.,8 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER9 MR. BOUTROUS: Mr. Chief Justice, and may itplease the Court:11 The mandatory nationwide class in this case12 was improperly certified for two fundamental reasons.13 First, plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s14 cohesion requirements as reflected in the commonality,typicality, and adequacy requirements of the rule.16 Second, plaintiffs' highly individualized claims for17 monetary relief failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2)'s18 requirements for certification of a mandatory19 non-opt-out class.Regarding Rule 23(a), because the21 plaintiffs' claims in this case hinge on the delegation22 of discretion to individual managers throughout the23 country, they cannot meet the cohesion requirements that24 are reflected in -- in Rule 23(a). The delegation ofdiscretion in some ways is the opposite of cohesive3
Alderson Reporting Company

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->