Typicality – The plaintiffs’ claims and defenses must be typical to those of proposedclass members’ claims. This is required by Rule 23(a)(3).Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al., 564 U.S. 338 (2011) – Wal-Mart is the U.S.Supreme Court ruling that tightened the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) andheld that judges must conduct a “rigorous analysis” to determine whether there is a“common” contention central to the validity of the claims that is “capable of class-wideresolution.” It is arguably the most important decision on Rule 23 class certificationstandards.8© Duane Morris LLP 2023Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review – 2023
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
Table of contents
2
3
4
6
7
11
12
14
16
20
22
25
26
27
33
36
38
40
