Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. (2013)
green
· 115 citation events
across 13 courts.
Showing the 35 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201420202026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Jirek v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (2024)
At that stage, if requested to do so, the court makes a more rigorous examination of the facts relating to whether or not the case may appropriately continue as a collective action.” Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 856 (N.D.
green
Hunter v. Wirelesspcs Chicago LLC (2022)
The merits of a case are not decided at the first step, and the Court does not “weigh evidence, determine credibility, or specifically consider opposing evidence presented by a Defendant.” Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855-56 (N.D.
citation omitted
green
Nicks v. Koch Meat Co. (2017)
At this first stage, the plaintiffs have the burden of showing that other potential claimants are similarly situated by making a “modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that they and potential plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law.” Id.; Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 852, 855 (N.D.
requiring “modest factual showing of common, unlawful - conduct and provide some indication of harm to employees.”
green
O'Neil v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc. (2023)
At that stage, if requested to do so, the court makes a more rigorous examination of the facts relating to whether or not the case may appropriately continue as a collective action.” Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 856 (N.D.
green
Johnson v. Cellco Partnership (2021)
Ill. 2020); Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855-56 (N.D.
green
Grosscup v. KPW Management, Inc. (2017)
Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 852, 855 (N.D.
“At this stage of -the proceedings, plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing of common, unlawful conduct and provide some indication of harm to employees.”
green
Peggy Whitford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blessing Corporate Services, I… (2026)
Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 860 (N.D.
green
Lutz v. Froedtert Health Inc (2024)
LEXIS 57008 , at *7 (quoting Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855 (N.D.
green
RICHARDS v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY (2024)
Feb. 3, 2021) (quoting Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852 , 855–56 (N.D.
"Conditional certification is not the time to 'weigh evidence, determine credibility, or specifically consider opposing evidence presented by a Defendant' . . . ."
green
Williams v. Tophat Logistical Solutions, LLC (2023)
The merits of a case are not decided at this stage and the Court does not “weigh evidence, determine credibility, or specifically consider opposing evidence presented by a Defendant.” ., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855-56 (N.D.
citation omitted
green
Flynn v. Colonial Management Group (2023)
Mar. 21, 2013); Bergman Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 853, 856-60 (N.D.
green
Millings v. Transdev North America, Inc. (2023)
To succeed at this first step, a plaintiff must demonstrate that there are other “similarly situated” claimants by making “a modest factual showing” that other employees were subject to a “common policy or plan that violated the law.” Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855 (N.D.
green
Peck v. Mercy Health (2022)
As noted by another district court, “Courts have granted conditional class certification to similar classes of hospital employees who work in direct patient care, including registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and nurses' aides.” Myers, 201 F. Supp. 3d at 895–96 (citing Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 852, 860 (N.D.
granting conditional certification to “nurses and hospital employees who are engaged in the direct care of patients” and noting that “[t]he nature of their interrupted meal breaks was affected by the demands of patient care”
green
Fares v. H B & H LLC (2022)
Jan. 3, 2020) (quoting Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855-56 (N.D.
green
Michalovic Crawley v. United States (2021)
Aug. 24, 2021) (“Although equitable tolling is not routinely granted, the Court finds that it is appropriate here given Plaintiff’s argument that it would be unfair to count time against potential plaintiffs for the period the conditional certification motion was pending . . . and COVID-19 pandemic issues.”); Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 860 (N.D.
“The long delay in issuing a ruling is an extraordinary circumstance that should not cause the opt-ins to lose out on the potential benefits of this lawsuit.”
green
Ford v. U.S. Foods, Inc. (2020)
Courts have described this “modest factual showing” as a “low standard of proof,” Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855 (N.D.
green
Rossman v. EN Engineering, LLC (2020)
At the same time, district courts, in evaluating the first step, are not meant to “make merits determinations, weigh evidence, determine credibility, or specifically consider opposing evidence presented by a defendant.” Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855-56 (N.D.
green
Vargas v. Sterling Engineering, Inc. (2020)
At this initial stage, however, “[t]he court does not make merits determinations, weigh evidence, determine credibility, or specifically consider opposing evidence presented by a defendant.” Id. (quoting Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855-56 (N.D.
Hart, J.
green
PRATER v. WEBER TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. (2020)
Ind. Dec. 9, 2016) (denying certification, despite evidence that the department was “consistently understaffed,” that employees were “required to stay in their as- signed area during meal breaks,” were “required to keep their pager and phones on them and turned on,” and were “required to answer pages and phone calls during their meal breaks,” because plaintiffs’ vague statements about “culture” and “work environment” did not provide information regarding “what led the declar…
“The showing made by the plaintiffs is essentially limited to the meal-break rule as experienced by nurses and hospital employees who are engaged in the direct care of patients. The nature of their interrupted meal breaks was affected by the de- mands of patient care.”
green
Rosebar v. CSWS, LLC (2020)
At this initial stage, “[t]he court does not make merits determinations, weigh evidence, determine credibility, or specifically consider opposing evidence presented by a defendant.” Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855-56 (N.D.
green
Calloway v. AT&T Corp. (2019)
At least one court in this District has criticized this line of reasoning, declaring that it “ignores the realities of FLSA claims” and “would go against ever applying equitable tolling to a potential opt-in.” See Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 861 (N.D.
green
Lieberman v. Altounian Construction, Inc. (2019)
Plaintiff’s burden is to make a "modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that they and potential plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." Russell, 575 F. Supp. 2d. at 933; Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855 (N.D.
requiring "modest factual showing of common, unlawful conduct and [] some indication of harm to employees."
green
Lofton v. EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC (2019)
Plaintiff’s burden is to make a "modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that they and potential plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." Russell, 575 F. Supp. 2d. at 933; Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855 (N.D.
requiring "modest factual showing of common, unlawful conduct and [] some indication of harm to employees."
green
Berger v. Howard Cortes (2018)
Other courts in this District have described this “modest factual showing” as a “low standard of proof,” Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 2013 WL 2632596, at *3 (N.D.
green
Astarita v. Menard, Inc. (2018)
Compare Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp. 2d 852, 860 (N.D.
“[t]he long delay in issuing a ruling [on a motion for conditional certification] is an extraordinary circumstance that should not cause the opt-ins to lose out on the potential benefits of this lawsuit”
green
Ivery v. RMH Franchise Corp. (2017)
Id.; Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 852, 855 (N.D.
“At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing of common, unlawful conduct and provide some indication of harm to employees.”
green
Kutzback v. LMS Intellibound, LLC (2017)
Tenn. Mar. 5, 2014) (concluding that a fifteen-month period between the motion for conditional certification and the court’s ruling upon it was an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling because, during that time, the potential opt-in plaintiffs did not have actual notice of the action); Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 852, 860-61 (N.D.
concluding that a period of longer than “a few months after the motion has been fully briefed” is an extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling to prevent opt-in plaintiffs from “los[ing] out on the potential benefits” of the action
green
Gomez v. PNC Bank, National Ass'n (2014)
Other courts in this District have described this “modest factual showing” as a “low standard of proof,” Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 852, 855 (N.D.Ill.2013), and requiring only a “minimal showing.” Jirak v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 566 F.Supp.2d 845, 847 (N.D.Ill.2008).
green
Hannah v. The Huntington National Bank (2020)
See Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855 (N.D.
green
Lucas v. JJ's of Macomb, Inc. (2018)
See e.g., Bergman , 949 F.Supp.2d at 861 (24-month delay in ruling on pending motion for conditional certification was extraordinary circumstance justifying equitable tolling); but see Sylvester v. Wintrust Financial Corp. , No. 12 C 01899 , 2014 WL 10416989 , at *2 (N.D.
24-month delay in ruling on pending motion for conditional certification was extraordinary circumstance justifying equitable tolling
See, e.g., Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852 , 860–61 (N.D.
equitably tolling statute of limitations for FLSA collective members where two years elapsed between when motion for conditional certification was fully briefed and when it was decided
green
Cates v. Alliance Coal, LLC (2022)
See generally Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 2d 852, 860-861 (N.D.
green
Knox v. Jones Group (2016)
See Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 852, 860-61 (N.D.Ill.2013) (finding extraordinary circumstance because the court entered its ruling after the motion was fully briefed for two years).
green
Myers v. Marietta Memorial Hospital (2016)
See, e.g,, Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 852, 860 (N.D.Ill.2013) (granting conditional certification to “nurses and hospital employees who are engaged in the direct care of patients” and noting that “[t]he nature of their interrupted meal breaks was affected by the demands of patient care”); Colozzi v. St.
green
Bitner v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. (2014)
Compare, e.g., Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 852, 860-61 (N.D.Ill.2013) (tolling statute of limitations); McGlone v. Contract Callers, Inc., 867 F.Supp.2d 438, 445 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (same); Putnam v. Galaxy 1 Mktg., Inc., 276 F.R.D. 264, 276 (S.D.Iowa 2011) (same), with Green-stein v. Meredith Corp., No. 11-2399-RDR, 2013 WL 4028732 (D.Kan.
same