 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martello v. City of Ferriday3/6/2002
always has the discretion to alter or amend the Class definition, or decertify some or all of the Class. La. C C. P. art. 592(A)(3)(c). In exercising this discretion, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that, because of a Court's ability to review and/or modify its certification ruling at any time, "if an error is to be made, it should be made in favor of and not against the maintenance of the class." McCastle, supra, 456 So. 2d at 620; Ellis v. Georgia-Pacific, 550 So. 2d 1310, 1318 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1989), writ denied, 559 So. 2d 121 (La.1990); La. C.C.P. art. 592(A)(3)(c). The Court finds, therefore, that this criteria is satisfied.
Factor (e) suggests that certification is appropriate when it would be impractical or unlikely for the Class members to be able to pursue their claims but for the class action procedure. This factor is particularly important in cases such as this one, where the Court anticipates that many of the Class members may have claims that might be considered "negative value" claims. The policy ofproviding a meaningful opportunity for persons with low value claims to pursue a remedy is at the very core of the rationale behind the class action procedure. The United States Supreme Court has even said that the most dominant reason for a Rule 23(b)(3 )3 class action is the vindication of the rights of groups of persons with negative value claims. See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2246 (1997). The Court finds that this criteria is satisfied.
Factor (f) suggests that certification is appropriate when the relief being demanded, including the vindication of any implicated public policies or legal rights, justifies the costs and burdens of class litigation. As was mentioned earlier, if even one plaintiff filed an individual suit against these three defendants, because of the nature of the case, the issues involved, and the scientific nature of many of the facts, this case would be considered complex litigation.
Having five (5) Class Representatives litigate all of the common issues of liability and fault at one time, with the outcome having res judicata effect for more than 4,500 Class members, will save costs and streamline the litigation. The Court finds that the cost of trying all of the common issues of liability and causation in one trial, with the Class represented by the five (5) Representatives herein appointed, sufficiently outweighs the prospect of trying these same issues repetitively. The Court finds that this criteria is satisfied.
The Court finds, therefore, that the criteria of La. C.C.P. art. 591(B)(3), which requires that the common issues must predominate over the individual ones, and which also requires that the class action procedure must be superior to other available procedural methods for managing and trying the claims, is satisfied in this case as to all three defendants.
|