Class action

Although standards differ between states and countries, class actions are most common where the allegations usually involve at least 40 people who the same defendant has injured in the same way.

Class actions survived in the United States thanks to the influence of Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story, who imported it into US law through summary discussions in his two equity treatises as well as his opinion in West v. Randall (1820).

For example, a 1978 environmental law treatise reprinted the entire text of Rule 23 and mentioned "class actions" 14 times in its index.

[7] In two major 21st-century cases, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 against certification of class actions due to differences in each individual members' circumstances: first in Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011) and later in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (2013).

[9] Rejecting arguments that they violated employees' rights to collective bargaining, and that modestly-valued consumer claims would be more efficiently litigated within the parameters of one lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018), enabled the use of class action waivers.

Citing its deference to freedom to contract principles, the Epic Systems opinion opened the door dramatically to the use of these waivers as a condition of employment, consumer purchases and the like.

Some commentators in opposition to the ruling see it as a "death knell" to many employment and consumer class actions, and have increasingly pushed for legislation to circumvent it in hopes of reviving otherwise-underrepresented parties' ability to litigate on a group basis.

Many of those supporters had long-since argued that class action procedures were generally inconsistent with due process mandates and unnecessarily promoted litigation of otherwise small claims—thus heralding the ruling's anti-litigation effect.

One study of federal settlements required the researcher to manually search databases of lawsuits for the relevant records, although state class actions were not included due to the difficulty in gathering the information.

Landeros v. Flood (1976) was a landmark case decided by the California Supreme Court that aimed at purposefully changing the behavior of doctors, encouraging them to report suspected child abuse.

Finally, a class action avoids the situation where different court rulings could create "incompatible standards" of conduct for the defendant to follow.

For example, a court might certify a case for class treatment where a number of individual bond-holders sue to determine whether they may convert their bonds to common stock.

[citation needed] The preamble to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, passed by the United States Congress, found: Class-action lawsuits are an important and valuable part of the legal system when they permit the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm.

In one paper presented at an ABA conference on class actions in 2007, authors commented that "competing cases can also provide opportunities for collusive settlement discussions and reverse auctions by defendants anxious to resolve their new exposure at the most economic cost".

Plaintiff's counsel can then join the claims of all of these persons in one complaint, a so-called "mass action", hoping to have the same efficiencies and economic leverage as if a class had been certified.

In Prince Edward Island, where no comprehensive legislation exists, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, [2001] 2 S.C.R.

13 Paragraph 2 of the Mediation Procedure Act (Spruchverfahrensgesetz), the court decision concerning the dismissal or direction of a binding arrangement of an adequate compensation is effective for and against all shareholders, including those who have already agreed to a previous settlement in this matter.

Effective on November 1, 2018, the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) introduced the Model Declaratory Action (§ 606 ZPO) that created the ability to bundle similar claims by many affected parties efficiently into one proceeding.

In civil law, the associative action is represented by a foreign body in the matter of asserting and enforcing individual claims and the claimant can no longer control the proceedings.

Decisions of the Indian Supreme Court in the 1980s loosened strict locus standi requirements to permit the filing of suits on behalf of rights of deprived sections of society by public-minded individuals or bodies.

[43][44] The Supreme Court has observed that the PIL has tended to become a means to gain publicity or obtain relief contrary to constitutionally valid legislation and policy.

These types of claims are increasing, and Italian courts have allowed them against banks that continue to apply compound interest on retail clients' current account overdrafts.

Overall, the new class action appears to be a viable instrument which, through a system of economic incentives, could overcome the rational apathy of small-claims holders and ensure redress.

This includes a claim for monetary damages, provided the event occurred after 15 November 2016 (pursuant to new legislation which entered into force 1 January 2020).

The sums sued for are usually enormous, so that the respondent can be forced to concede, if they do not want to face sudden huge indebtness and insolvency (so-called legal blackmail).

[58]The Civil Procedure Rules of the courts of England and Wales came into force in 1999 and have provided for group litigation orders in limited circumstances (under Part 19.21–26, supplemented by Practice Direction 19B).

"[67] To have standing to sue under Section 11 of the 1933 Act in a class action, a plaintiff must be able to prove that he can trace his shares to the registration statement in question, as to which there is alleged a material misstatement or omission.

Under § 1332(d)(2) the federal district courts have original jurisdiction over any civil action where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and Nationwide plaintiff classes are possible, but such suits must have a commonality of issues across state lines.

Large class actions brought in federal court frequently are consolidated for pre-trial purposes through the device of multidistrict litigation (MDL).

[74] Finally, adequacy requirement states that the named plaintiff must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the absent class members.