Also known as: numerous · class size requirement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An element of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) requiring that the proposed class be so large that joining all members as individual plaintiffs would be impracticable.
Nina Nielsen and 450 other delivery drivers sued Nobel Dynamics for unpaid overtime. The drivers worked identical routes and received the same pay policies. Because locating and joining every driver individually would require extensive discovery across multiple states, the court found the class so large that joinder was impracticable and certified the action.
Nicole Navarro conveyed land subject to a limitation measured by the lives of twenty named relatives. Because those relatives were few and their deaths could be tracked through ordinary records, the court held the group was neither so numerous nor so situated that evidence of death would be unreasonably difficult to obtain.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Natasha Nielsen sought to represent 200 victims of a racketeering scheme in a single action against the organizer. The victims were scattered across several cities and many lacked current addresses. The court certified the class after finding that locating and joining each victim individually would be impracticable.
Nora Nash sued on behalf of 1,200 small donors alleging improper coordination. Because the donors were dispersed nationwide and many had moved since making contributions, the court determined that joinder of all members would be impracticable and allowed the class to proceed.
Noelle North brought claims against State Farm on behalf of 3,000 policyholders denied benefits under identical policy language. The policyholders resided in multiple states and many could not be located through ordinary means. The court found numerosity satisfied because individual joinder was impracticable.
Noreen Nguyen sought to represent 800 residents living near a nuclear facility alleging safety violations. The residents were spread across several counties and many had changed addresses. The court held that the size and dispersion of the group made joinder impracticable and certified the class.
No fixed number exists. Courts focus on whether joinder is impracticable, which can be shown with as few as forty members when they are dispersed or difficult to identify, or may require hundreds when members are readily ascertainable.
Supporting sources
No. The standard is impracticability, not impossibility. Extreme difficulty or inconvenience of joinder is enough, even if individual suits remain theoretically possible.
Supporting sources
Yes. Plaintiffs need only provide reasonable estimates based on available evidence. Courts accept good-faith approximations when precise counts are unavailable before discovery.
Supporting sources
The inquiries are related but distinct. Numerosity asks whether joinder is impracticable. Superiority asks whether a class action is better than other available methods. A class can meet numerosity yet fail superiority if individual actions would be more efficient.
Supporting sources
…539 U.S. 558, 575. In 2012, the federal Defense of Marriage Act was also struck down. United States v. Windsor , 570 U. S. . Numerous same-sex marriage cases reaching the federal courts and state supreme courts have added to the dialogue. Pp. 6–10. (b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage…