Also known as: FRCP 23 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 · Rule 23 · class action rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule that prescribes the prerequisites and procedures for certifying and maintaining class actions in federal district courts.
Fiona Foster and hundreds of other policyholders sue Fidelity Trust alleging systematic underpayment of interest on late claim checks. Separate individual suits would produce conflicting rulings on whether the insurer must pay interest under identical contract terms. The court certifies the class because the risk of incompatible standards of conduct for the defendant justifies collective treatment.
Frederick Ferguson files a diversity suit against Franklin Foundry on behalf of numerous suppliers seeking only contractual interest on late payments. State law prohibits class actions limited to interest recovery. The federal court applies the federal class rule to decide certification and permits the class to proceed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Faith Fitzgerald challenges a state durational residency requirement for divorce on behalf of all recent arrivals. Her individual claim becomes moot after she satisfies the residency period. The court allows the class action to continue because the named plaintiff adequately represented the class at the time of certification.
Forrest Falconer brings a class action against Foxfire Biotech that is dismissed with prejudice. A later individual suit by a class member raises the same claims in another court. The dismissal bars the second action because the class judgment carries claim-preclusive effect.
Felicia Fuentes sues as a shareholder on behalf of Fairfield Bank and moves to proceed without posting a bond. State law requires security in derivative actions. The court holds that the federal class rule governs procedural aspects while the state bond requirement may still apply as a substantive condition.
Fatou Fall files a class complaint in federal court and serves the defendant under the federal rule for service. State law prescribes a different method with a shorter limitations period. The court upholds the filing and service because the federal class rule controls the procedural mechanism in federal court.
Yes. When a federal procedural rule directly conflicts with a state procedural rule in a diversity action, the federal rule controls if it is valid under the Rules Enabling Act. Rule 23 addresses only the procedural question of whether claims may be litigated as a class and does not alter any substantive right created by state law.
Supporting sources
The defendant must have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, making final injunctive or declaratory relief appropriate for the class as a whole. A uniform policy that restricts rights for every class member satisfies this requirement when the injunction would benefit the entire class without individualized determinations.
Supporting sources
Rule 23(a)(2) requires only that there be questions of law or fact common to the class. A single common question suffices even if individual damages or notices differ. A uniform practice applied to every class member creates that common question of fact.
Supporting sources
Rule 23 governs the availability of class certification and displaces the conflicting state statute. The federal rule is valid under the Rules Enabling Act because it regulates practice and procedure without abridging, enlarging, or modifying any substantive right.
Supporting sources
…when Cohen arose can appreciate the strong state policy reflected in the statute. I think it wholly legitimate to view Federal Rule 23 as not purporting to deal with the problem. But even had the Federal Rules purported to do so, and in so doing provided a substantially less effective deterrent to strike suits, I think the…