What must a plaintiff show to obtain class certification under Rule 23?

A plaintiff must satisfy the four prerequisites in Rule 23(a) and at least one category in Rule 23(b). The prerequisites are numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The plaintiff must also show that common questions predominate and that a class action is superior when proceeding under subdivision (b)(3).

Does a state procedural rule that bars class actions for certain claims displace Rule 23 in federal court?

No. When a state rule would deny class treatment, Rule 23 still governs because it is a valid procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act. The federal rule controls and displaces the conflicting state limitation.

When may a private plaintiff sue for public nuisance as a class representative?

A private plaintiff may sue as a class representative when the defendant has interfered with a right common to the public and the plaintiff satisfies the standing requirements of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821C(2)(c). The plaintiff must either show special injury different in kind from the general public or proceed under an authorized representative mechanism such as a class action.

How does the class action device affect subject-matter jurisdiction in diversity cases?

In traditional diversity cases only the named representative must satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. Unnamed members' separate claims are not aggregated. Under the Class Action Fairness Act the claims of all class members are aggregated to determine whether the $5,000,000 threshold is met.

class action — Legal Definition, Examples & Cases

Inconsistent Adjudications Risk

Cameron Cruz and other borrowers each hold identical loan agreements with Continental Bank that contain the same interest-calculation clause. If every borrower sued separately, some courts might order the bank to apply one interest method while others ordered a different method, leaving the bank unable to comply with all judgments at once. The court therefore certifies the suit as a class action so that a single ruling governs the bank's conduct toward the entire group.

Federal Rule Controls Over State Bar

Caleb Chang, a New York resident, sues an insurer in federal court under diversity jurisdiction seeking statutory interest on late-paid claims. A New York statute would bar class treatment for such penalty claims, but the federal court applies Rule 23 and certifies the class. The certification proceeds because the federal rule governs the procedural question of class availability.

Public Nuisance Representative Suit

Clifford Cox owns land near a factory whose emissions affect an entire neighborhood. He sues the factory for public nuisance and seeks an injunction on behalf of all residents who share the same interference with the public right to clean air. The court permits the suit to proceed as a class action because Cox satisfies the standing requirements for a representative action.

Predominance and Superiority Finding

Christine Castro and thousands of other customers each paid a small overcharge on identical service contracts from Coastal Shipping. Common questions about the contract language and billing practice predominate over any individual damages calculations. The court certifies the class under Rule 23(b)(3) because a single class proceeding is superior to thousands of separate small-claims suits.

School Segregation Class Suit

Craig Caldwell and other African-American schoolchildren in Topeka attend schools segregated by race under state law. They sue the local board of education on behalf of all similarly situated children seeking an order ending the segregation. The suit proceeds as a class action because the constitutional claim is common to every member of the defined class.

Brown v. Board of Education [*Brown I*]347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954)

These cases originated in the states of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. In each case, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, sought the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis after being denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. In the Kansas case, Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. The three-judge District Court found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. In the South Carolina case, Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon County brought an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforcement of state constitutional and statutory provisions requiring segregation. The three-judge District Court denied relief, found the Negro schools inferior, and ordered the defendants to begin immediately to equalize the facilities while sustaining the validity of the contested provisions. In the Virginia case, Negro children of high school age residing in Prince Edward County brought a similar action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The three-judge District Court denied relief after finding the Negro school inferior in physical plant, curricula, and transportation and ordering equalization while upholding the segregation laws. In the Delaware case, Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in New Castle County brought an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of state constitutional and statutory provisions requiring segregation. The Chancellor gave judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously attended only by white children on the ground that the Negro schools were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupil-teacher ratio, extracurricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance involved in travel. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed. The cases reached the Supreme Court on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 or on certiorari. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard in the 1953 Term on certain questions propounded by the Court, including the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. In the cases other than Delaware, the courts below found that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other tangible factors. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases for consideration together because a common legal question justified their consideration despite different facts and local conditions.

Marriage Ban Representative Suit

Cassandra Cooper and other interracial couples in Virginia are denied marriage licenses solely because of their race. They file suit requesting a declaration that the ban is unconstitutional. The court resolves the equal-protection claim because it applies uniformly to persons subject to the statutory prohibition.

Loving v. Virginia388 U.S. 1 (1967)

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion not having been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requesting that a three-judge court be convened to declare the Virginia antimiscegenation statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing their convictions. On January 22, 1965, the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. On February 11, 1965, the three-judge District Court continued the case to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the highest state court. The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation statutes and, after modifying the sentence, affirmed the convictions. The Lovings appealed this decision, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction on December 12, 1966. The two statutes under which the Lovings were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages, specifically Virginia Code sections 20-58 and 20-59. Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications, and the present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.

class action

Cases

Statutes

Federal Rules

Restatements

Common Examples

Inconsistent Adjudications Risk

Federal Rule Controls Over State Bar

Public Nuisance Representative Suit

Predominance and Superiority Finding

School Segregation Class Suit

Marriage Ban Representative Suit

Students Frequently Ask...

Key Cases Using This Term

Brown v. Board of Education

Loving v. Virginia

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

Test Yourself

Practice Questions5

Practice Essays5