Without class actions, large corporate defendants would be able to cause small amounts of harm over a large group of individuals without any risk of monetary penalty.
Class Action allow a Plaintiff who would ordinarily not have access to the Court bring a collective action. Class Actions enforce regulatory statutes & common law caused of action that keep companies honest and hold them accountable when they deceive the public or fall below acceptable industry standards.
A Class Action lawsuit involves a large group of people that have experienced extremely similar outcomes. Because the cases must meet the strict guidelines of the Class Action, they are presented under one plaintiff.
In a Mass Tort, individual experiences may vary. Even though a large number of people have been affected, the variations from case to case are more broad than a class action. In a Mass Tort each plaintiff is represented independently, though in most instances there is still a set of general criteria to meet.
Medical Device Litigation, Pharmaceutical Litigation, and other toxic tort litigation is not appropriate for Class Action treatment. Specifically, cases that involve injuries to the parties contain too many individual facts in terms of the science and causation to find that the common issues predominate over the individual facts.
On the other hand, complex litigation that impacts many individuals and contain common questions of fact related to the conduct of the defendant are often appropriate for mass tort consolidation. Mass Tort consolidation in federal multi-district litigation or a State mass tort docket, allows the parties to utilize the efficiency of class action litigation through the discovery process but still allows the parties to litigate their cases individually on the critical issues of whether the conduct caused the alleged injuries.
While our human bodies are very similar, each individual’s body may have reacted differently to the toxic exposure that makes Class Action treatment inappropriate in most personal injury lawsuits.
Some toxic tort areas that may be beneficial for class action lawsuits can involve environmental contamination. When companies are negligent and contaminate large swaths of private property. Public nuisance lawsuits have been filed against negligent agricultural operations of fracking companies
There are several steps in analyzing whether a case is appropriate for class treatment. In order for a case to be certified as a Class Action, the Court must first determine that the case is appropriate for class action treatment under Rule 23 (a) . There are different elements depending on whether the case is seeking monetary or injunctive relief. In general, the Court must find the following elements are satisfied:
There is currently a Circuit Split on this “hot topic” in class action litigation. Recently, the 11th Circuit, in Cherry v. Dometic Corp. 986 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir., 2021) held that “administrative feasibility was not a requirement for class certification.” This decision fell in line with the 2nd, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits that have all found that Rule 23 does not include administrative feasibility as precondition to class certification. This holding is in opposition to the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Circuits.
This holding does not not mean that there is no requirement to show the class ascertainable and manageable, which is shown if the class is adequately defined such that its membership is capable of determination. If it turns out that the class is unmanageable, then the Court has discretion to decertify the class.
Civil Rule 23 (B)(1) addresses cases where multiple suits would create a risk of inconsistent rulings or establish incompatible standards of conduct where individual actions would as a practical matter decide the interests of absent class members.
Rule 23(B)(1) provides that a class action can be maintained if:
This form of class action is for the benefit of the defendants in that it prevents them from being required by different courts to act inconsistently toward other identically situated class members. In these situations, a defendant may violate one court order while trying to comply with a different court order. This type of certification is usually reserved for class actions seeking injunctive relief.
Examples of 23(B)(1) Classes Include:
NO NOTICE IS REQUIRED. NO OPT OUT IS ALLOWED. COURTS ARE THEREFORE RELUCTANT TO CERTIFY CLASSES UNDER 23(b)(1)
Rule 23(B)(2) was originally created for Civil Rights Cases. The Rule allows the Court to address cases where the Defendant has acted or refused to act in a way that applies to the class as a whole. The relief sought must be “primarily injunctive” and not monetary. Claims for unjust enrichment or “back pay” are not appropriate for treatment under Rule 23(B)(2).
NO NOTICE or OPT OUT REQUIRED
Rule 23 (B)(3): Damages Class
Rule 23(B)(3) applies when the primary form of relief is monetary damages. There are some additional statutory elements to certify a class under Rule 23(B)(3). The Court must weigh both the “predominance” and “superiority” factor outlined in the Rule:
NOTICE & OPT OUT IS REQUIRED
Our Firm will help you find the answers. The Lyon Firm has the experience, resources and dedication to take on difficult and emotional cases and help our class action clients obtain the justice for the wrong they have suffered.
Joe Lyon is an experienced Cincinnati Class Action Lawyer with 17 years of experience and success representing individuals and plaintiffs in all fifty states, and in a variety of complex civil litigation matters. Class Action lawsuits can be complex and require industry experts to determine the root cause of an accident or injury. Mr. Lyon has worked with experts nationwide to assist individuals understand why an injury occurred and what can be done to improve their lives in the future. Some cases may go to a jury trial, though many others can be settled out of court.
Resources/Dedication: Mr. Lyon has worked with experts in the fields of accident reconstruction, biomechanics, epidemiology, metallurgy, pharmacology, toxicology, human factors, workplace safety, life care planning, economics, and virtually every medical discipline in successfully representing Plaintiffs across numerous areas of law. The Lyon Firm is dedicated to building the strongest class action cases possible for clients and their critical interests.
Each case is unique, though The Lyon Firm fights to maximize each settlement for our clients.
Some cases are resolved in a matter of months while others can be litigated for years. Some companies wish to settle quickly to minimize a PR backlash while others fight until the end, taking each case to trial.
The Lyon Firm investigates and litigates class action cases involving Invasion of Privacy, TCPA, Consumer Fraud, Data Breach, and Deceptive Sales Practices, Mortgage Satisfaction, Mortgage Satisfaction Violations, and Financial Fraud.
Class Counsel Appointments and Experience: Joseph Lyon has been appointed as Co-Lead Counsel in State and Federal Class Action Cases.
Invasion of privacy law has been established to protect consumers and citizens of the United States. When companies are negligent and fail to protect consumer information, which can be used in malicious ways, victims can contact a class action attorney to represent them in class action data breach lawsuits. A number of privacy breach and data breach claims have been settled by The Lyon Firm and other consumer protection lawyers around the country.
Consumers have rights in the USA, and when companies do not provide a service they have promised, or hold up their end of a bargain, legal action may be necessary. Consumer protection attorneys work on your behalf to hold companies responsible for providing a fair and safe service.
The Lyon Firm has worked with law firms nationwide in consumer class actions involving deceptive marketing, false advertising, food mislabeling and misleading marketing claims.
TCPA lawsuits have become one of the most common kinds of legal claims. The TCPA Act provides privacy protection for consumers by restricting how companies and organizations can contact you by telephone. Robocall harassment and unfair debt collection has been a serious issue that has required lawsuits in order to keep telemarketing companies at bay.
If you have experienced telephone harassment by a bank, real estate company, hotel, political campaign or anyone else, you may have TCPA claim. The Lyon Firm works diligently to seek compensation for those harassed at their home or work.
Class action wage and hour lawsuits are always ongoing, as some employers fail to treat employees properly, and attempt to cut workers out of earned wages. Wage theft lawsuits can be valuable for a class of plaintiffs who believes their employer has cheated them out of overtime pay and other earned wages.
There have been several wage theft lawsuits and settlements that have compensated employees for the wages they have earned, as well as damages for emotional distress and punitive damages when an employer is negligent in treating workers in accordance to Ohio labor law.