Also known as: Rule 23 · FRCP 23 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 · class action rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule prescribing the prerequisites and procedures for certifying and maintaining class actions in federal district courts. The rule requires satisfaction of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy before a class may proceed and further mandates one of three additional conditions for maintenance of the action.
Foster Forge and two dozen other suppliers each filed separate suits against Freeman Engineering seeking interest on late payments under identical contracts. The district court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(1) because separate judgments could impose conflicting payment obligations on Freeman Engineering. Certification allowed a single adjudication that established uniform standards for all claims.
Fusion Power filed a diversity action on behalf of itself and hundreds of other customers seeking statutory interest on delayed rebates. A state statute barred class actions limited to interest recovery. The court applied Rule 23 to evaluate certification and disregarded the state prohibition because the federal rule controlled the procedural question.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Freya Freeman brought a class action against Ferrum Metals directors alleging misleading proxy statements. She argued the class satisfied Rule 23(a) prerequisites. The court examined whether the complaint met numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy before allowing the action to proceed on behalf of all shareholders.
Finn Fletcher sued Basic Inc. on behalf of shareholders alleging misleading statements about merger talks. The court considered whether the statements were material to the class and whether reliance could be presumed across the class under the fraud-on-the-market theory.
Francisco Frost filed a class action against Kemper Financial officers for breach of fiduciary duty. The court addressed whether federal procedure governed the certification prerequisites before the action could be maintained on behalf of the class of similarly situated shareholders.
Felix Franco and other merchants sued American Express alleging antitrust violations. An arbitration agreement barred class proceedings. The court determined whether the agreement prevented certification of a class under Rule 23 despite the federal policy favoring arbitration.
Yes. A valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that directly addresses class certification governs in federal court even if a conflicting state statute would bar the class. Rule 23 regulates procedure and does not alter substantive rights, so it displaces the state restriction under the Rules Enabling Act.
Supporting sources
The representative's claims must arise from the same course of conduct and rest on the same legal theory as the class. The representative must also have no conflicts with absent members and possess incentive to prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the entire class.
Supporting sources
The court may refuse approval unless it affords a new opportunity to request exclusion to class members who had an earlier opportunity but did not opt out. This protects members who might not have anticipated the settlement terms.
Supporting sources
…petitioners' material misrepresentations, noting that without the presumption it would be impractical to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). See 786 F. 2d, at 750-751. We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1083 (1987), to resolve the split, see Part III, infra, among the Courts of Appeals as to the standard of materiality…