Also known as: Rule 23 · class action Rule 23 · FRCP 23 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal procedural rule that authorizes one or more representative parties to litigate claims or defenses on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons. The rule requires satisfaction of the prerequisites in Rule 23(a) together with one of the categories in Rule 23(b). It supplies the exclusive framework for determining whether an action may proceed as a class action in federal court.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ravi Reddy and hundreds of other landowners each sued Rocky Mountain Mining separately after the company altered water rights on adjacent parcels. The district court found that separate suits created a risk of incompatible injunctions ordering different restoration standards. It certified the class under Rule 23(b)(1) because the representative's claims satisfied typicality and adequacy.
Ralph Richardson filed a diversity action in federal court on behalf of thousands of policyholders seeking statutory interest that Rising Sun Electronics had withheld. A state statute barred representative suits for such interest claims. The court applied Rule 23 to decide certification because the federal rule governed the procedural question and did not alter substantive rights.
Regina Robinson brought a class action challenging a state residency rule that blocked her divorce petition. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court her own claim had become moot. The Court held that the class action could continue because the controversy remained live for absent members who still satisfied the residency requirement.
Riley Rivera sued Riverfront Developments in federal court for breach of a construction contract and sought class treatment. The defendant had already filed a state-court declaratory action. The district court stayed the federal case under the Colorado River doctrine after finding that the state proceeding would not adequately protect the class claims.
Raphael Rivera and other store managers sued Radiance Media alleging a company-wide policy of denying promotion opportunities to women. The Supreme Court reversed certification because the plaintiffs could not identify a common question capable of classwide resolution. Individual supervisor decisions defeated the required showing of commonality.
Ronald Reed filed a shareholder derivative action against Rocky Mountain Mining alleging waste of corporate assets. The company moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs. The court granted the motion after finding that the action lacked a reasonable possibility of success on the merits.
Yes. Rule 23 is a valid procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act because it regulates the manner of litigation without altering substantive rights. When a state statute conflicts with Rule 23 on the availability of class treatment, the federal rule governs and displaces the state bar.
Supporting sources
…permissively joined under Rule 20 (like the additional plaintiffs in No. 04-79) or certified as class-action members pursuant to Rule 23 (like the additional plaintiffs in No. 04-70). The natural, indeed the necessary, inference is that § 1367 confers supplemental jurisdiction over claims by Rule 20 and Rule 23 plaintiffs.…
…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
…the suit did not belong in federal court. II The framework for our decision is familiar. We must first determine whether Rule 23
…20, and 24 provide for joinder of parties and intervention by parties having claims related to the subject matter of the action.
The representative's claims must arise from the same practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the class and must be based on the same legal theory. Minor factual differences in the representative's individual situation do not defeat typicality if the core claim remains aligned with those of absent members.
Supporting sources
Adequacy fails when the representative has a conflict of interest that would cause the representative to favor the defendant's position over the class or to pursue a course that harms absent members. A side agreement that creates an incentive to accommodate the defendant on the very issues the class seeks to challenge ordinarily renders the representative inadequate.
Supporting sources
No. The state statute addresses only the procedural mechanism of aggregation and does not redefine the elements of the underlying claims or the measure of damages. Rule 23 therefore controls the certification decision in federal court.
Supporting sources