| Venue: | LA SC |
| Facts: | Chemical "land farming" operation gives of noxious fumes. |
| Posture: | Class action suit. Trial court refuses to certify the class because the members aren't easily identifiable, they've got a range of injuries, and many are asking for large damages. Affirmed on appeal. Appeal. |
| Issue: | Should the class be allowed? |
| Holding: | Yes. Reversed. |
| Rule: | When the plaintiffs are so numerous that joinder is impractical, the representative parties are proper champions of the class, and the injuries have a common character, class action is the appropriate way to proceed. |
| Reasoning: | LA and FRCP 23(b) elements for class action, as well as the Uniform
Class Actions Act. Here we get a tour of the idea behind
class actions.
Basically here we're concerned about judicial efficiency: we should only refuse to certify a class if the net benefits of a class action are small in comparison to the advantages of other approaches. That's the only way to be fair to the plaintiffs who might never make it to court otherwise. We want to take a pragmatic, not a formalistic, approach to class certification. |
| Dicta: | There are risks associated with class actions, also: they might be scary enough to deter legitimate socially useful activities. |