Skip to content
Scan a barcode
Scan
Paperback Rule 23 and Class Certification Book

ISBN: 1521355290

ISBN13: 9781521355299

Rule 23 and Class Certification

Select Format

Select Condition ThriftBooks Help Icon

Recommended

Format: Paperback

Condition: Like New

$35.49
Almost Gone, Only 1 Left!
Save to List

Book Overview

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The selection of decisions spans from 2015 to the date of publication."A district court may certify a case for class-action treatment only if it satisfies the four requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)--numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation--and one of the conditions of Rule 23(b)." Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Schs., 668 F.3d 481, 493 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 23). The plaintiffs sought certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting individual members." Predominance is "similar to Rule 23(a)'s requirements for typicality and commonality, [but] 'the predominance criterion is far more demanding.'" Messner, 669 F.3d at 814 (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997)). McCaster v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., (7th Cir. 2017).The Supreme Court has explained that "[c]ommonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members 'have suffered the same injury'" at the hands of the same defendant. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349-50 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 (1982)). But it's not enough for the plaintiffs to show that class members "have all suffered a violation of the same provision of law." Id. at 350. Instead they must show that "the same conduct or practice by the same defendant gives rise to the same kind of claims from all class members." Suchanek, 764 F.3d at 756. "The critical point is 'the need for conduct common to members of the class.'" Id. (quoting In re IKO Roofing Shingle Prods. Liab. Litig., 757 F.3d 599, 602 (7th Cir. 2014)). Put somewhat differently, the class members' claims must depend on a common contention that is "capable of classwide resolution." Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 350. McCaster v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., ibid.

Related Subjects

Law

Customer Reviews

0 rating
Copyright © 2026 Thriftbooks.com Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information | Cookie Policy | Cookie Preferences | Accessibility Statement
ThriftBooks ® and the ThriftBooks ® logo are registered trademarks of Thrift Books Global, LLC
GoDaddy Verified and Secured