Year-end lists are funny things.  They take a sort-of arbitrary starting and stopping point, and then they cram a bunch of prejudices into a (usually) arbitrary number of items.  And then people take them kind of seriously.  But they can be handy ways of catching trends one did not see before.  And in a year

For a long time, I have had a very specific law review article I’ve wanted to write, but with my many other commitments, it has never come to fruition. And, given my schedule coming up, it’s unlikely it ever will. But I do have this blog, so why not just outline the idea here?


 For some time, academics have been decrying the demise of the class action, arguing that the Supreme Court’s precedent makes it harder than ever to certify a class under Rule 23. And yet, as one practitioner I know observed, plaintiffs keep filing the things. And quite a few courts keep certifying them.

Now, however, at

At this point, I’m well aware that I tend to sound like an old crank when reviewing class action scholarship; much of it repeats the same old stuff, predicts the imminent demise of the class action in its current form, and looks at the same Supreme Court cases instead of digging into where the real

Plaintiff and defense lawyers tend to talk past each other a lot when discussing the legal theories underlying the class action. Plaintiffs talk of deterrence, and the need for easier certification requirements. Defendants talk about potential abuses of the device, and the need for due process. Plaintiffs prefer the "entity theory" of class actions. Defendants

The adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) tends to be under-studied and under-enforced.  That’s why it is always a pleasure to read new work on adequacy. Now, Professor Elizabeth Burch has published her latest discussion of the adequacy requirement: Adequately Representing Groups.

Professor Burch focuses on the standard that should apply when attacking adequacy

 In 2006, childcare providers in the state of Michigan unionized, primarily so that they could negotiate state low-income subsidies with Michigan’s Department of Human Services. The vote to unionize was largely one-sided, but not unanimous. Similarly, few childcare providers voted against the subsequent collective bargaining agreement, which required participants in Michigan’s Child Development and Care

 Brenda Kennedy was hospitalized in 2009 for four days. She had an insurance policy from United American that paid benefits for each day that she spent in the hospital, and she assigned those benefits to the hospital. When she received her hospital bill, she discovered that it had only covered three days, not four. So