Identity Crisis: Class Certification, Aggregate Proof, and How Rule 23 May Be Self-Defeating the Policy for Which It Was Established

Abstract

Class actions suits developed in the United States as a form of “group litigation,” an alternative to the impracticability or inequities of separate, individual actions of a similarly situated class of plaintiffs and, eventually, defendants. Congressional passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) provided the federal courts with expounded diversity jurisdiction for the purpose of “assur[ing] fairer outcomes for class members and defendants.” However, recent circuit splits regarding class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the use of aggregate proof in certifying classes have, in an ironic twist of legal fate, resulted in the very same “inconsistent or varying” standards that the rule was designed to prevent.