Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2023 - Report - Page 7
that adding each class members to the complaint would be impractical. This is a
requirement for class certification imposed by Rule 23(a)(1).
Predominance – The Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that, to obtain class certification, the
plaintiffs must show that common questions predominate over any questions affecting
individual members.
Rule 23 – This rule from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs class actions in
federal courts and requires that a party seeking class certification meet four
requirements 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 class
certification, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation.
Rule 23(b) – To secure class certification, a class must meet one of three requirements
of 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 if
prosecuting separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications
with respect to individual class members or adjudications with respect to individual class
members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other
members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or
impede their ability to protect their interests.
Rule 23(b)(2) – A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and the party
opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate
respecting the class as a whole.
Rule 23(b)(3) – A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
Superiority – The Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that a class action can be permitted only if
class resolution is the superior method of adjudicating the claims.
Typicality – The plaintiffs’ claims and defenses must be typical to those of proposed
class 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) and
held 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-wide
resolution.”
7
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
PAGA Litigation Review – 2023
