Also known as: class action · class-action · class-actions · class action lawsuit · representative proceeding
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural device permitting one or more representatives to litigate claims or defenses on behalf of a larger group that shares common questions of law or fact. Certification requires satisfaction of the prerequisites in Rule 23(a) together with one of the categories listed in Rule 23(b). The resulting judgment binds absent class members provided due-process protections such as notice and opt-out rights are observed.
Charles Cunningham and 180 other homeowners sued Canyon Construction alleging defective foundation work on identical model homes. Separate suits risked conflicting rulings on whether the same construction specifications violated building codes. The court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) because individual adjudications would impose incompatible standards of conduct on the builder.
Catherine Carter, a New York resident, filed a diversity class action in federal court seeking statutory interest on late credit-card payments. A New York statute barred class treatment of such claims. The court held that Rule 23 governed certification because the federal rule addressed procedure and did not enlarge substantive rights under the Rules Enabling Act.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cynthia Cortez and neighboring landowners brought a class action against Citadel Security for noise and light pollution from a nearby facility. The complaint alleged a private nuisance affecting use and enjoyment of land. Cortez satisfied standing requirements to proceed as class representative under the Restatement provision allowing a class member to sue on behalf of the affected public.
Curtis Cannon and thousands of consumers sued Crown Pharmaceuticals alleging a uniform misrepresentation on drug labels caused economic loss. Common questions about the falsity of the label and the defendant's knowledge predominated over individual reliance issues. The court certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3) after finding that a single proceeding was superior to thousands of separate suits.
Cassandra Cooper purchased a cell-phone plan containing an arbitration clause that barred class proceedings. She later sought to pursue a class action alleging improper charges. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted a state unconscionability rule that would have invalidated the class-action waiver.
Caleb Chang filed a putative class action alleging that telecommunications carriers engaged in parallel pricing conduct. The complaint contained only allegations of parallel behavior without facts suggesting an agreement. The Supreme Court held that such allegations failed to state a plausible claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and dismissed the action.
The plaintiff must demonstrate that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual issues and that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. The court considers the class members' interests in controlling separate actions, the extent of existing litigation, the desirability of concentrating claims in one forum, and manageability.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a federal rule addresses the procedure for class certification and does not abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights, it controls under the Rules Enabling Act even if a state statute would deny class treatment.
Supporting sources
A class member may sue as representative when the claim involves invasion of interests in the private use and enjoyment of land and the member meets the standing requirements set out in the Restatement.
Supporting sources
The claims of individual class members are aggregated to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 under the Class Action Fairness Act. Separate and distinct claims cannot be aggregated to meet the ordinary diversity threshold of $75,000.
Supporting sources
…were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion not having been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requesting that a three-judge court be convened to declare the Virginia antimiscegenation statutes unconstitutional…