Class actions are a powerful and important tool for individuals with similar claims against a common defendant. Often, the defendant is a large, powerful corporation with a team of expensive attorneys at its disposal. Most employees and consumers do not have the resources to take on these corporations in court on their own, not to mention the fact that their individual claims are usually too small to justify the expenses associated with filing a lawsuit.
The class action solves all these problems. It allows individuals with similar complaints against a common defendant to combine their claims into one, large claim. It also provides them with the leverage they need to arm themselves with competent legal representation.
But plaintiffs looking to combine their claims need class certification from a court judge, and in order to get that, they need to prove the class meets certain requirements.
One of those requirements is that all the members of the class must have claims and situations that are similar enough to justify filing all their claims together. This is a common target for defendants to attack, often claiming that plaintiffs are not eligible for class certification because their situations are not exactly identical. This view was perpetuated in the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Wal-Mart a few years ago, but many judges are still certifying class actions all over the country and maintaining that their certifications are still in line with both the relevant class action law and the Supreme Court’s decision. Continue reading