Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Class actions are one of the most powerful procedural tools in civil litigation, and understanding their requirements is essential for any Civil Procedure exam. You're being tested on your ability to analyze whether a case can proceed as a class action—a question that requires you to apply Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure systematically. The requirements break down into two tiers: the four prerequisites that every class action must satisfy, and the additional requirements for specific types of class actions under Rule 23(b).
The key concepts here involve procedural efficiency, due process protections, and representative litigation. Courts use these requirements to balance the benefits of aggregate litigation against the risks of binding absent parties to judgments they didn't personally litigate. Don't just memorize the four prerequisites—understand what each requirement is designed to protect and how courts apply them in practice. When you see a class action fact pattern, your job is to systematically work through each requirement and identify potential weaknesses.
Every class action must satisfy all four prerequisites under Rule 23(a). Think of these as the threshold gatekeeping requirements—if any one fails, the class cannot be certified regardless of how compelling the underlying claims may be.
Compare: Commonality vs. Typicality—both require alignment between the representative and the class, but commonality focuses on shared questions, while typicality focuses on shared claims. On an exam, a representative with a unique claim might satisfy commonality (same legal question) but fail typicality (different factual basis).
After satisfying Rule 23(a), plaintiffs must fit their case into one of three categories under Rule 23(b). Each serves different purposes and carries different procedural consequences—particularly regarding notice and opt-out rights.
Compare: Predominance vs. Superiority—both are required for 23(b)(3) certification, but they ask different questions. Predominance asks whether common issues dominate; superiority asks whether a class action is the best vehicle. A case can satisfy predominance but fail superiority if, for example, individual class members have strong incentives to litigate separately.
These requirements protect absent class members' due process rights. Because class judgments bind people who never appeared in court, the system must ensure they receive adequate notice and meaningful opportunities to protect their interests.
Compare: 23(b)(2) vs. 23(b)(3) notice and opt-out rights—injunctive relief classes under 23(b)(2) have no automatic opt-out right because the relief is indivisible (an injunction affects everyone equally). Damages classes under 23(b)(3) require opt-out rights because monetary relief is individual. If an FRQ asks about due process concerns in class actions, this distinction is your starting point.
Before reaching Rule 23's requirements, courts must confirm that basic justiciability requirements are met. These doctrines operate independently of class certification but can derail a class action before it begins.
Compare: Standing vs. Adequacy—both concern the representative's fitness to litigate, but standing is a constitutional requirement (Article III), while adequacy is a procedural requirement (Rule 23). A representative could have standing but be inadequate (e.g., conflicted interests), or could be adequate but lack standing (e.g., no personal injury).
| Concept | Key Requirements |
|---|---|
| Rule 23(a) Prerequisites | Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, Adequacy |
| Rule 23(b)(3) Additional Requirements | Predominance, Superiority |
| Due Process Protections | Notice, Opt-out rights (for 23(b)(3)) |
| Justiciability | Standing, Ascertainability |
| Commonality After Wal-Mart | Common question must yield common answer |
| Notice Standards | Best practicable notice; individual notice for 23(b)(3) |
| Opt-Out Availability | Required for 23(b)(3); not available for 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2) |
A proposed class has 30 members, all located in different states. Does this satisfy numerosity? What factors would strengthen or weaken the argument?
Compare commonality and predominance. Why might a class satisfy commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) but fail predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)?
Which types of class actions require opt-out rights, and why does due process demand this distinction?
A class representative has a strong claim but hired an attorney with no class action experience. Which Rule 23(a) requirement is at risk, and what must the court evaluate?
An FRQ presents a consumer fraud case where liability depends on common misrepresentations but damages vary widely based on individual purchases. Analyze whether this case can proceed as a 23(b)(3) class action.