Also known as: incompatible standard of conduct
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A risk that separate lawsuits by or against individual class members would produce inconsistent or varying adjudications imposing irreconcilable legal obligations on the party opposing the class.
Hundreds of patients received the same cardiac device from Meridian Health Network and CardioTech. Some patients sued in different courts seeking immediate removal while others sought orders barring removal absent further testing. Separate suits would force Meridian and CardioTech to obey one injunction requiring prompt removal and another forbidding it without testing.
Farmworkers and growers sued Prairie Seed and Heartland Ag over a uniform no-seed-saving license. Some plaintiffs sought orders compelling strict enforcement while others sought orders barring any enforcement. Separate actions would require the companies to enforce the restriction in one court and refrain from enforcing it in another.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Southern Code faced suits in multiple states over its privacy settings change. Courts in two states ordered deletion of all behavioral data while courts in another permitted continued retention with added consent steps. Separate adjudications would require the company to delete data under one order and retain it under another despite its centralized systems.
Retirees sued the City of Franklin over reduced health benefits drawn from a single strained fund. Separate suits by different factions sought conflicting restoration orders and allocation rules. Individual adjudications would force the city to restore full benefits under one judgment while applying a different structure under another.
The risk supports certification when separate actions would produce conflicting court orders that a defendant cannot obey simultaneously. Courts examine whether the obligations are truly irreconcilable rather than merely different in scope or application.
Supporting sources
Yes when modest adjustments allow simultaneous compliance with all orders. The rule requires a showing that compliance with one adjudication necessarily violates another rather than that compliance is merely inconvenient.
Supporting sources
Both risks can justify the same mandatory class but address different harms. Incompatible standards focus on conflicting obligations for the defendant while limited-fund concerns focus on practical impairment of absent claimants' interests in a shared pool.
Supporting sources
No. The provision targets situations in which separate adjudications would impose conflicting affirmative duties on the defendant such as inconsistent injunctions rather than merely different damage awards.
Supporting sources
…create a risk of (A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or (B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members…