Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): reside because they have no standing to pursue those claims. As explained herein, the Court finds that none of defendants’ arguments warrant dismissal of any state-law claims at this stage. A. Legal Standard To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The D.C. Circuit has not considered the application of the plausibility standard to class allegations, but several other circuits have held that Rule 12(b)(6) motions can be used to strike class allegations when it is apparent on the face of the, complaint that they cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. See McCrary v. Stifel, Nicolaus, & Co., 687 F.3d 1052, 1059 (8th Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that under present rule settlement class must meet all rule 23 requirements and expressing concern about dangers of overrewarding attorneys and undereompensating class members (B) holding that a case may be dismissed sua sponte under rule 12b6 prior to service without motion by defendants or briefing by the parties (C) holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims were dismissed the class action was properly dismissed (D) holding that even if a defendant in a proposed class action does not seriously contest whether the rule 23 requirements have been met a court nevertheless has the responsibility of conducting its own inquiry as to whether the requirements of rule 23 have been satisfied in a particular case (E) holding that class claims that fail to meet the requirements of rule 23 may be properly dismissed by granting a rule 12b6 motion
Output (English): holding that under present rule settlement class must meet all rule 23 requirements and expressing concern about dangers of overrewarding attorneys and undereompensating class members