inclusion of the full caption of this case on the first page of their proposed notice. They contend that the caption “risks giving a potential opt-in the false impression of judicial endorsement of Plaintiff’s position where none exists.” (Dkt. No. 127 at 18). The plaintiffs argue that the caption “serves the important purpose of indicating that the motion is not junk mail.” (Dkt. No. 136 at 6). Here again, district courts are split. Compare Shipes v. Amurcon Corp., No. 10-14943, 2012 WL 1720615, at *1 (E.D.Mich. May 16, 2012) (“The case caption does not give the false impression that the Court endorses the litigation; rather, it serves the important purpose of indicating that the Notice is not junk mail.”) with Flores v. Lifeway Foods, Inc., 289 F.Supp.2d 1042, 1047 (N.D.Ill.2003) (<HOLDING>). After a careful review of the relevant
holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners argument that the evidence in the record clearly establishes that he is more likely than not to face torture if removed citation quotation marks and brackets omitted holding proposed notice with case caption is likely to be misunderstood as a representation that the suit probably has merit citation omitted holding that in the grievance representation context an employee must prove that the unions acts tainted the grievance procedure such that the outcome was more than likely affected by the unions breach internal citation and quotation omitted recognizing that dismissal is warranted only in extreme cases citation omitted holding that proof that the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located is sufficient to establish constructive possession citation omitted