Timothy D. Cohelan
Cohelan & Khoury, San Diego, California
| Chapter 1. Introduction To California Class Actions |
§ 1.06 Federal Authority: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 23 |
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, revised and substantially
adopted in 1966, has had broad effect. Because it is a relatively straightforward
description of the types of situations in which class actions can be certified,
it is a touchstone for analysis of California cases. However, in the event
of a difference between federal and state law on a given practice, California
decisional law controls.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) sets forth four prerequisites
to asserting a class action:
- Numerous parties making joinder impracticable.
- Common questions of law and fact.
- Typical claims and defenses by the representative parties.
- Adequacy of representation.
Once these "threshold criteria" are met, and only then, the court must
move on to the analysis required by Federal Rule 23(b), which requires
the court to decide whether the action is a "mandatory" class action requiring
no notice. (See Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 23(b)(1) & (2).) The mandatory
classification covers class actions in which there is a risk of inconsistent
or incompatible standards of conduct, the potential for adjudications
that would be dispositive of the interests of the class, or a suggestion
of injunctive relief or declaratory. The more common notice and opt-out
requirements satisfying due process in claims for monetary damages are
governed by Federal Rule 23(b)(3) and require courts, on the other hand,
apply the criteria of Federal Rule 23(a) and (b) in a more structured
way, with at least the appearance of a tighter framework of analysis.
As this book is going to press, there have been hearings held before
the Committee on Proposed Reforms of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure which would have an impact on the federal handling of class
actions. These changes include expressly a settlement class provision,
a provision similar to that of a "substantial benefit" requirement, and
other changes. Practitioners are advised to monitor these recommendations.
Copyright © 2001 West Group
| 
