Ten Cases to Educate You

• In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2011). 
• Pipefitters Local 636 Ins. Fund v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 654 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2011).
• Madison v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., 637 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2011).
• In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002). 
• Gregory v. Finova Capital Corp., 442 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 2006). 
• Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. 259 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2001).
• Kamm v. California City Development Co., 509 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1975). []
• Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1974). []
• Bevrotte v. Caesars Ent. Corp, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114463 (E.D. La. Oct. 4, 2011). []
• Pablo v. Servicemaster Global Holdings, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87918 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011).

Further Reading:

• Edward F. Sherman, "Abandoned Claims" in Class Actions: Implications for Preclusion and Adequacy of Counsel, 79 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 483, 503 (2011). 
• Andrea Joy Parker, Dare to Compare: Determining What "Other Available Methods" Can Be Considered Under Federal Rule 23(b)(3)’s Superiority Requirement, 44 Ga. L. Rev. 581 (2010).
• D. Bruce Hofferman, To Certify or Not: A Model Proposal for Evaluating the "Superiority" of a Class Action in the Presence of Government Enforcement, 18 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1383 (2005).

Questions to Consider:

• Judge Easterbrook authored both In re Aqua Dots and In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.: is it possible to reconcile the two opinions?
• What forms of adjudication are superior to class actions? Are there consistent principles for finding them so?
• How do the four factors under Rule 23(b)(3) play into the typical superiority analysis?
• Several judges and scholars have begun making arguments that imply that there may be a larger overlap between superiority and adequacy than previously thought. What can defense counsel make of these analyses?