Walgreen Co., 386 Ill. at 39, 53 N.E.2d at 394, for instance, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that Illinois’ disqualification provision “makes every ‘factory, establishment, or other premises’ a unit for the purpose of ascertaining whether a stoppage of work due to a labor dispute exists.” The Indiana Appellate Court held in Blakely, 120 Ind.App. at d 658, 660 (Ky.1955) (noting that “establishment,” as used in the statute, “has no special or technical meaning” and can be defined as “a fixed geographical ‘place’.”); Abnie v. Ford Motor Co., 175 Ohio St. 273, 275, 194 N.E.2d 136, 138 (1963) (“The word, ‘establishment,’ has a clear and natural meaning as a distinct physical place of business.”); Abbott v. Employment Sec. Dep’t of State, 27 Wash.App. 619, 623, 621 P.2d 734, 736 (1980) (<HOLDING>). D. Resolution Applying this reasoning to the
holding individual defendants subject to suit holding that because the tcpa claims will require extensive individual fact inquiries into whether each individual gave express consent by providing their wireless number to the creditor during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed  individual inquiries   predominate over the class action holding that premises means each individual jobsite holding that based upon means similar to or supported by holding that there is no need for the agency to supply affidavits from each individual who participated in the actual search