Typicality tends to be a useful, if not always used, way of framing various class action issues. Its primary purpose is to ensure that the class action is really a representative lawsuit rather than just an individual case with pretensions. Given the rulings on typicality so far, it’s worth asking how defendants might argue it more effectively.
Ten Cases to Bring You Up to Speed:
- Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 637 F.3d 818, 821 (7th Cir. 2011).
- Daffin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006).
- Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461, 466–67 (4th Cir. 2006).
- Beck v. Maximus, Inc.,457 F.3d 291, 296 (3d Cir. 2006).
- Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 399 (6th Cir.1998).
- Peviani v. Natural Balance Inc., 2011 WL 1648952 (S.D. Cal. May 2, 2011).
- Noel v. Hudd Distribution Services, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21480 (D.S.C. March 2, 2011).
- Schilling v. Kenton County, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8050 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 27, 2011).
- Wiener v. Dannon Co., 255 F.R.D. 658 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
- In re Welding Fumes Prods. Liability Litig., 245 F.R.D. 279, 304 (N.D. Ohio 2007).
- There really hasn’t been any scholarship that focuses on the typicality requirement in class actions.
Questions to Consider:
- Why hasn’t there been any scholarship that focuses on the typicality requirement in class actions?
- A number of courts have held that "factual differences" between claims does not mean typicality does not exist. If that is the case, how dissimilar must a claim be before the typicality is lacking?
- Given the adequacy and commonality requirements, is typicality a necessary finding?