Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)

Subscribe to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)

The requirement that the named plaintiff must be an adequate class representative is not often the basis for denying class certification. But a recent decision from the Northern District of Illinois in a false-advertising class action illustrates the importance of taking discovery on facts that are relevant to the adequacy standard.

In Lipton v. Chattem, Inc., the district court denied class certification in a case alleging that purchasers of a weight-loss product, Dexatrim, had been deceived because the label did not disclose that its ingredients included hexavalent chromium, which allegedly can cause serious health problems. The court held that …
Continue Reading Lipton v. Chattem, Inc.: Federal District Court Denies Certification On Adequacy Grounds

According to an interesting student note that will soon be published in the Stanford Law Review, the answer to both questions is “yes.” Specifically, the would-be class counsel must “protect[] the substantive legal rights of putative class members . . . from prejudice” “resulting from the actions of class counsel.”

The implications for defendants opposing class certification are significant: If the plaintiff’s lawyers have prejudiced the rights of absent class members, then they have demonstrated that they will not “fairly and adequate protect the interests of the class,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). And…
Continue Reading Do Class Counsel Owe Fiduciary Duties to Absent Class Members Before Class Certification (and Should Defendants Care)?

Should a class action go forward when the company voluntarily has provided all the relief plaintiffs have sought?  At least in some circumstances, the answer is “no,” according to the Tenth Circuit.

Here’s some background.   Many product manufacturers—and especially auto makers—are targeted by the class action bar when they announce voluntary recalls.  The lawsuits typically allege (among other things) that the manufacturer had fraudulently concealed the defect, and seek an injunction ordering the manufacturer to repair the defect.  In other words, these suits seek precisely the same relief that the manufacturer is already providing.  Sometimes the plaintiffs tack on requests…
Continue Reading Class Action Attacking Product Defect Declared Moot When Company Voluntarily Recalled Challenged Product