Also known as: 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 procedural rule that authorizes and governs the maintenance of class actions in federal civil litigation when specified prerequisites are met. The rule requires satisfaction of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation before a class may proceed. It further delineates the circumstances under which a class action may be maintained for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or damages.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Chad and the Sky Coalition sued the State of Ohio on behalf of all current and future state prisoners challenging a department-wide policy barring hardback books. The plaintiffs sought an injunction invalidating the policy and moved to certify a class under Rule 23. The court certified the class because the single policy applied uniformly and injunctive relief would benefit the entire class without individualized determinations.
Deborah sued Grove Coverage in federal court on behalf of thousands of policyholders alleging systematic underpayment of interest on late claim checks. State law barred class actions for such interest claims. The court applied Rule 23 to decide certification because the federal rule governs the procedural mechanism and displaces the conflicting state statute under the Rules Enabling Act.
Exxon Mobil faced claims from multiple plaintiffs in a diversity action. Some plaintiffs sought to join as class members under Rule 23. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the class members' claims because Section 1367 confers jurisdiction over claims by Rule 23 plaintiffs without the restrictions that apply to indispensable parties.
A plaintiff filed a diversity action in federal court and invoked Rule 23 for class certification. The defendant argued that a conflicting state procedural rule should control. The court applied the federal rule because it regulates practice and procedure and is valid under the Rules Enabling Act even when state law differs.
A plaintiff filed a class action challenging a state durational residency requirement for divorce. The plaintiff's individual claim became moot after she satisfied the residency period. The court held that the class action could proceed because the controversy remained live for unnamed class members who continued to face the requirement.
The United States sued an employer and union alleging racial discrimination in hiring and seniority systems. The government sought class-wide relief for affected minority workers. The court addressed the scope of the class remedy under Rule 23 while noting that the action could bind class members consistent with due process protections.
Rule 23 governs when it directly conflicts with state law because the federal rule addresses only the procedural mechanism for aggregating claims. The Rules Enabling Act validates Rule 23 because it does not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right created by state law. Courts therefore apply the federal standard to decide certification even if state law would bar the class action.
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…
…than the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum under §1332. The dealers sought to have their claims certified as a class
…See id. , at 457–459. Some scholars have criticized the trend. See generally id. , at 457–465; Morley, Nationwide Injunctions, Rule 23(b)(2), and the Remedial Powers of the Lower Courts, 97 B. U. L. Rev. 615, 633–653 (2017); Morley, De Facto
…claims were representative of the class, and that she would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
…supra . This question was not presented in either petition for certiorari and therefore is not properly before us. This Court's Rule 23
The defendant must have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class so that final injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate for the class as a whole. A uniform policy that affects every class member in the same way satisfies this requirement. Individualized monetary claims are generally incompatible with certification under this subdivision.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 23(a)(2) requires only that there be one or more questions of law or fact common to the class. A single common question suffices even if individual damages or other circumstances differ among members. Variations that do not defeat the existence of a common question do not prevent certification.
Supporting sources
Section 1367 confers supplemental jurisdiction over claims by Rule 23 class members. The statute withholds supplemental jurisdiction only over claims by plaintiffs joined under Rule 19 or intervening under Rule 24 in diversity cases. Class members certified under Rule 23 therefore fall within the grant of supplemental jurisdiction.
Supporting sources