You are on page 1of 2

RULE 23 – CLASS ACTIONS

(a) Prerequisites (before maintaining a CA, all must be met) : 1 or more members of a class may sue
or be sued as representative parties on behalf of ALL members ONLY if :

* Class = P or D with definable/connected characteristics


(1) Numerosity- class is so numerous, joinder of ALL is impracticable.
(2) Commonality- questions of law or fact COMMON to a class
• Members of class must have a common basis for litigation.
(3) Typicality- claims/defenses (D or P) of representative parties are typical of class
• Class representatives and members of a class cannot have conflicting claims.
(4) Adequacy of Representation- Representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.
• Adequacy of Plaintiffs: Ps are financially equipped; class representatives have the
same interest as class members:
◦ Yamamoto's example: Airline flight attendants sue (age discrimination case). Ps
in the suit were current flight attendants. Settlement favored women who were
hired over women who weren't. Thus, there was a conflict of interest between
existing employees and those who applied for the job and didn't make it. (a)(4)
wasn't satisfied. In this case, you would need subclasses (another attorney).
◦ CAs are an exception to Pennoyer (“a party must be a party”). The only way this
exception is met is if the class is adequately represented.
• Adequacy of Counsel- (a)(4) used to cover P's counsel too. But now, there is a
separate rule for counsel 23(g). Keep in mind, HI has no 23(g) yet.

(b) Types of Class Actions: A class action may be maintained if 23(a) satisfied AND if
(1) PREJUDICE (homogeneous class): Prosecuting separate actions by/against individual
class members would create a risk of
(a) inconsistent/varying adjudications (w/ respect to individual members) that would
establish incompatible standards of conduct for a party/opposing class.
• Purpose: prevents inconsistent standards of conduct.
• Yamamoto's example: City wants to issue bonds to build rail transit. Some
citizens oppose, others support. To avoid incompatible judicial rulings the court
can group the supporters and challengers into classes and litigate it under one
action. Combine into one decision.
(b) would be dispositive of interests of other members not parties to individual
adjudications or substantially impair/impede their ability to protect their interests.
• Purpose: Prevent some Ps from benefiting first while leaving other members of a
class who are similarly situated to be disenfranchised due to limited funds to
satisfy the matter. This allows all Ps in the class an equal share.
• Yamamoto's examples: D has many wives; insurance policies.
(2) INJUCTIVE RELIEF: Party opposing the class has acted/refused to act on grounds
that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding
declaratory relief is appropriate (for class as a whole).
• Yamamoto's examples:
◦ Civil Rights cases (voter registration, ending segregation, etc.)
◦ A class of purchasers against a seller alleged to have undertaken to sell to
that class at prices higher than those set for other purchasers, when the
applicable law forbids such a pricing differential. Money damages can be
awarded but only if the are incidental to the injunctive relief.
(3) CATCH-ALL DAMAGES: (1)Common questions of law or fact must predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members. (2) CA must be superior in terms of
fairness/efficiency.
• Consider:
◦ (A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or
defense of separate actions;
◦ (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already
begun by or against class members;
◦ (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the
claims in the particular forum; and
◦ (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
• Purpose: Covers everything not in (1) and (2). All claims that involve monetary
damages. It can be beneficial for P, especially in mass action tort claims, because
it increases P's bargaining power by creating a threat to D for an enormous
damages judgement. On the other hand, it is beneficial for D since it allows
consolidation, efficiency, and encourages settlement.

You might also like