 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martello v. City of Ferriday3/6/2002
laims of the Class members because they are similar in nature, they arise from the same alleged course of each defendant's conduct, and they are all based on the same legal theories under Louisiana law. The Class Representatives demonstrated to the Court during their testimony that they are capable and prepared to represent the interests of the absent Class members.
The Court further finds that the Class Representatives are typical within the meaning of that term in Louisiana class action jurisprudence because they each present claims that are a cross-section of the Class they seek to represent. Louisiana's "adequacy of representation" criteria "requires that the claims of the class representatives be a cross-section of, or typical of, the claims of all class members." See e.g. Dumas, supra, 635 So. 2d at 450; Livingston Parish, supra, 598 So. 2d at 1177; Lailhengue v. Mobil Oil Co., 94-2114 at 5-6 (La. App. 4th Cir. 6/7/95); 657 So. 2d 542, 546; Ford v. Murphy Oil, 96-2913 at 4 (La. 9/9/97); 703 So. 2d 542, 544. Louisiana, however, does not require that either the Class Representatives or their claims be identical to all the Class members or to any Class members within the Class. Id.
The Court finds that the five (5) appointed Class Representatives present claims that are typical of those likely to be presented by the absent members of the Class certified herein. Their claims are a cross-section of the claims of the Class members, and are derived from the same common source. Their claims against the defendants are typical of all claims directed at the common nature of the defendants' conduct. The Court finds, therefore, that the "typicality" requirement is satisfied in this case. La. C.C.P. art. 591(A)(3).
4. Adequacy of Representation
The evidence that was presented at the Class Certification hearing satisfies the Court that the claims of the five (5) persons now appointed to serve as Class Representatives and the claims of the absent Class members (defined above) have a common character that predominates over their individual differences, and that the claims of these five (5) Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the members of the Class certified herein. The Court finds that none of the Class Representatives has any personal or financial interest in the outcome of this Class Action litigation that is adverse to the interests of the absent members of the Class, and also that each of them has demonstrated that they are able and willing to serve in the capacity of a Class Representative. La. C.C.P. art. 591(A)(4).
Louisiana requires class actions to be litigated by and through one or more adequate representatives who participate on behalf of and for the absent class members. Satisfying this element requires the proposed Class Representatives to establish that their claims are "a cross-section of, or typical of, the claims of all class members." Andry v. Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc., 97-0793 at 6 (La. App. 4th Cir. 4/l/98); 710 So. 2d 1126, 1130.
During the hearing, each proposed Class Representative testified before the Court about their personal and family background, their work background, their experiences with the Town of Ferriday's water, and of the hardships and problems they claim that they each suffered during the 1999 "Boil Water Notice". Each proposed Class Representative was questioned about the nature of their claims, their understanding of the nature of a class action, and their understanding of the role of a Class Representative. The Court finds that each of these witnesses was credible, candid and forthright in their answers, and that they each possess a good understanding of their role in this case.
Th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|