Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

Class certification: respondents’ class action was improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(3); a party seeking to maintain a class action must be prepared to show that Rule 23(a)’s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and ade­quacy-of-representation requirements have been met, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U. S. ___, ___, and must satisfy through ev­identiary proof at least one of Rule 23(b)’s provisions. The same ana­lytical principles govern certification under both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b). Courts may have to “ ‘probe behind the pleadings before com­ing to rest on the certification question,’ and a certification is proper only if ‘the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that [Rule 23’s] prerequisites . . . have been satisfied.’ ” Ibid. The analysis will frequently “overlap with the merits of the plaintiff ’s underlying claim”  because a “ ‘class determination generally involves considera­tions that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff ’s cause of action.’ ”; (…) require a determination that Rule 23 is satisfied, even when that requires inquiry into the merits of the claim. Wal-Mart, supra, at ___, and n. 6 (U.S. S. Ct., 27.03.13, Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, J. Scalia).

Action de classe : étape préalable de la certification : rappel des conditions ; les conditions doivent être réunies pour que la classe soit approuvée, même si doit être faite une évaluation juridique touchant les mérites de l'action au fond.

No comments:

Post a Comment