that adding each class members to the complaint would be impractical. This is arequirement for class certification imposed by Rule 23(a)(1).Predominance – The Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that, to obtain class certification, theplaintiffs must show that common questions predominate over any questions affectingindividual members.Rule 23 – This rule from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs class actions infederal courts and requires that a party seeking class certification meet fourrequirements of section (a) and one of three requirements under section (b) of the rule.Rule 23(a) – It prescribes that a class meet four requirements for purposes of classcertification, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy ofrepresentation.Rule 23(b) – To secure class certification, a class must meet one of three requirementsof Rule 23(b)(1), Rule 23(b)(2), or Rule 23(b)(3).Rule 23(b)(1) – A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and ifprosecuting separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudicationswith respect to individual class members or adjudications with respect to individual classmembers that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the othermembers not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair orimpede their ability to protect their interests.Rule 23(b)(2) – A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and the partyopposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to theclass, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriaterespecting the class as a whole.Rule 23(b)(3) – A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied andquestions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questionsaffecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other availablemethods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.Superiority – The Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that a class action can be permitted only ifclass resolution is the superior method of adjudicating the claims.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.”7© Duane Morris LLP 2023PAGA Litigation 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
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
24
27
