Rule 23 does not explicitly require that a court be able to determine who the members are before certifying a class. But judges have found implicit in the Rule a requirement that membership in a defined class be “ascertainable” or “definite.” For example, a court cannot address the numerosity requirement or provide effective relief to the class without first determining who the members of a class are.
In recent years, the federal appellate courts have adopted two approaches to addressing ascertainability. The first approach, adopted by the First, Third, Fourth, and Sixth ...
About Class Actions Brief Blog
Class Actions Brief is your source for analysis of class action developments in federal and state judicial systems nationwide. Our attorneys use their experience representing clients both in and against class actions to provide fresh takes and commentary on what is happening in our courts today.
Topics
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Appeals
- Arbitration
- Bankruptcy
- Choice of Law
- Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
- Class Counsel/Attorney's Fees
- Class Definition
- Class Representatives
- Collective Action
- Commonality
- Commonality/Predominance
- Consumer Protection
- Damages
- Data Privacy
- Due Process
- Employment
- Expert
- Jurisdictional Issues
- Manageability
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Recent Filings
- Securities
- Settlement
- Standing
- Standing/Mootness
- Statute of Limitations
- Tolling
Jurisdictions
- All Jurisdictions
- D.C. Circuit
- District of South Carolina
- Eastern District of North Carolina
- Fifth Circuit
- Fourth Circuit
- Legislation
- Middle District of North Carolina
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina Business Court
- North Carolina State Courts
- North Carolina Supreme Court
- Northern District of Georgia
- Other
- Seventh Circuit
- Sixth Circuit
- South Carolina State Courts
- Tenth Circuit
- Third Circuit
- United States Supreme Court
- Western District of North Carolina
