![]() The adequacy inquiry concerns the “interests and incentives of the representative plaintiffs.” Dewey v. ![]() “Adequacy” commands that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. at 311, and to avoid situations where the legal theories of the named plaintiffs conflict with the legal theories of the absentees. Though the concepts of commonality and typicality are analytically similar, the typicality requirement is specifically "designed to align the interests of the class and the class representatives so that the latter will work to benefit the entire class through the pursuit of their own goals," Id. However, class members are not required to have identical claims or underlying factual circumstances if the claims at issue arise from the same practice or course of conduct, or are based on the same underlying legal theory, the typicality requirement will be satisfied. The “typicality” requirement is satisfied if the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class. A common question is one that, when answered as to one class member, will advance the resolution of the claims of the other members of the putative class. This provision ensures that there are shared factual or legal issues among claimants such that it is efficient, fair and sensible to permit a single adjudication of similar claims. Generally, a class will not be certified unless “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” La Fata v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 446 U.S. The United States Supreme Court has stated that, “he numerosity requirement requires examination of the specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute limitations. ![]() To satisfy the requirement of numerosity, a Plaintiff must demonstrate that the class is so “numerous that joinder of all parties is impracticable.” Fed. See generally Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and New Jersey Rule of Court 4:32. For a class action to proceed, a court must conclude that: (1) that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (the “numerosity requirement”) (2) that there are questions of law or fact common to the class (the “commonality requirement”) (3) that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of those of the class (the “typicality requirement”) and (4) that the representative parties will adequately protect the interests of the class (the “adequacy of representation” requirement). The core issues facing a court when deciding if a class action is the appropriate way to resolve a multitude of similar claims is to determine: (1) whether common issues of law and fact predominate over individual ones concerning the putative (proposed) class members, (2) whether the class action is superior to a myriad of individually litigated cases, and (3) whether a class action-given the number of individual claims involved is manageable. Unlawful employment practices can take the form, among others, of misclassifying employees as exempt from being eligible for overtime pay or employers misclassifying its worker as independent contractors instead of employees to illegally avoid paying overtime, employer required payroll taxes and providing employee fringe benefits. Class actions can also be brought for consumer and securities fraud, and unlawful employment practices. Examples include “mass tort” claims where recovery is sought for defective products such as pharmaceutical drugs, medical devices, motor vehicles and other consumer products that have injured consumers. There are many different types of claims that can be well-suited for a class action lawsuit. It has been stated that a class action, “is a procedural device that was adopted with the goals of economies of time, effort and expense, uniformity of decisions, the promotion of efficiency and fairness in handling large numbers of similar claims.” In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigiation, 585 S.E. Mashel Law Represents Litigants In Class Action And FLSA Collective Action LawsuitsĪ class action is a procedural device of the courts permitting one or more persons to act as a plaintiff(s) representing the interests of a larger group of persons with similar claims.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |