Docstoc

ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION ZOLOFT MASS TORT - DrugRxRecall.com

Document Sample
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION ZOLOFT MASS TORT - DrugRxRecall.com Powered By Docstoc
					ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Mass Tort vs.  Class Action:  What is the Difference?




You may find this website because you put “class action” into
your search engine, along with a drug name, such as “Zoloft
Class Action”. 




You might think “class actions” are the way most
cases are handled by law firms dealing with
prescription drugs that harm people.  However,
actually this is not precisely true.
 
Most pharmaceutical drug claims are handled as
“mass torts.”
 




You probably did not put “mass tort” into the
search engine as the term “mass tort” is far less
well known legal term in the public generally.   
Therefore, we make sure to help you find us by
discussing class actions frequently and explain

                                                            1 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




the difference between class actions and mass
torts here.



Class Action




A class action is a type of legal
proceeding where a lawsuit is filed on
behalf of a group of people who share a
set of circumstances, harms, injuries,
sufferings, or potential damages.  Class
actions are designed to help promote
“judicial economy” and decrease pressure
on courts when large numbers of people
suffer a harm in the same manner.



For example, class actions are sometimes

                                           2 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




used in the context of when a bank or
large corporation charges fees that are
determined unfair to a large number of
clients.  In those instances, one harmed
person may stand as the single claim that
determines the outcome for the entire
class of claimants.           Often the
recovery is not good for the class of
harmed individuals as a whole.



Typically a class action has several
criteria that must be met.  The individuals
in the class must be notified of the claim
and given a chance to “opt in” or “opt out”
of the class, or find lawyers of their own.
 
Prior to the actual class action lawsuit, a
motion is filed in court that certifies a
particular plaintiff as the acting party on
                                          3 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




behalf of the larger group or class of
plaintiffs.



One of the factors looked at is whether the
individual recoveries for each plaintiff are
too low to warrant each plaintiff hiring their
own attorney;  when this is present a class
action may be certified as the best way to
proceed.                    For example,
this is often the case when dealing with
small bank fees.
 




The representative plaintiff also
shows that he or she is typical in that
his or her experience with the

                                           4 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




company or product is typical of the
experiences of the other similarly
situated plaintiffs, and that this type of
class action lawsuit is the most
efficient for holding the defendants
accountable.  The evidence against
the defendants must be typical and
represented in a similar manner by all
the harmed individuals, and finally, a
showing that individual lawsuits
against the defendant would never be
prudent nor efficient in time and
money is part of the process of
determining that a class action is the
best way to proceed.                       I
t is easy to see that the often massive
and very different injuries sustained
by people who take prescription drugs

                                         5 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




do not fit this mold for “class actions.”



Mass Tort Lawsuits




Mass torts are different from class
actions despite the fact that they
are related in the sense that both
share a large group of people who
have suffered harms. 




Mass tort claims, like class

                                         6 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




actions, try to reduce the
number of court claims in the
legal system and promote
judicial economy and efficiency.
 
However, they cover a much
broader range of subjects
typically than class actions and
they are handled differently.



Perhaps the simplest way to
understand the difference is
mass torts still involve each

                                         7 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




plaintiff having their own
individual claim.



There is no “representative
plaintiff” in mass tort claims.  Th
e mass tort plaintiffs are each
receiving their own legal
process and individual remedy
tailored to their particular
circumstances.
 
 


                                         8 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Mass tort claims are the most
common way that consumers
are provided legal remedies
when they are injured on a
large scale by defective
drugs or defective products. 
While drugs and defective
medical devices, for
example, injure large groups
of people, the injuries are
often very different among
each plaintiff.
                                         9 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
All cases in drug defect
claims rarely fit neatly into a
single class of individuals
who share the exact same
type of injury.



Mass tort litigation allows one
attorney or a group of
attorneys to represent
several injured parties in
individual cases.  The

                                         10 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




attorneys often share
information to help each
other and their clients
proceed against the
defendants in a more
powerful manner as a result
of the cooperation of the
plaintiffs’ attorneys.
 
Attorneys all over the
country, and in fact
sometimes internationally,
pool resources, research,
information, time, financial
                                         11 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




resources, and their
intellectual energy and ideas
to make sure that all of the
plaintiffs hopefully obtain
some measure of justice.



Mass tort claims are often
complicated with detailed
litigation and numerous
plaintiffs and defendants.  So
metimes experts are used
just to determine the proper

                                         12 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




way to award damages to the
various parties.



DrugRxRecall and The
Mulligan Law Firm are here
to listen to your potential
mass tort claim and hopefully
help as many people as
possible find justice.    Pleas
e contact us today if you or a
loved one have an injury of
any type discussed on this

                                         13 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




website.
 




What You Can Do &
How We Can Help
                                         14 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




If you or somebody
you know has
suffered an injury as
a result of a drug or
medical device
discussed on this
website, you should
contact us
immediately for a
free case
                                         15 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




consultation.

Call us at 888 446
8087, 24 hours a
day or fill out any of
the forms on this
website.




                                         16 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




For more
information, contact
a Zoloft® birth
defect lawyer /
attorney today.

Patients
using Zoloft or any
other
                                         17 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




medication should
not stop using it
unless told to do so
by their health care
professional.

The Mulligan Law
Firm, a national law
firm located in
                                         18 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Dallas, Texas,
provides legal
information and
resources for
injured individuals
and their families.
The firm has
successfully
resolved over
                                         19 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




$600,000,000 in
claims for its clients.
Formed in 1995, it
has been helping
people for almost
15 years, with the
strength and
experience to
represent plaintiffs
                                         20 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




in all 50 states.



You may be entitled
to compensation for
your injuries. We
take all cases on a
contingency-fee

                                         21 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




basis, which means
you do not pay for
our services unless
you receive an
award or
compensation.




                                         22 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Do not delay, as
your rights and
compensation may
be lost forever if
you wait. Statutes
of limitations vary
by state, and failure
to act immediately
may cause you to
                                         23 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




lose your potential
legal rights forever.




We thank Wikipedia
for the information
                                         24 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




below and
encourage you to
support their work. 
Please see main
article, Discussion
Tab, Contributors
List, etc., here:  



                                         25 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




http://en.wikipedia.o
rg/wiki/Class_action




Class action
From Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia


                                         26 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




This article is about
the legal term. For
names of various
art works, see
Class Action
(disambiguation).

This article may
contain original
                                         27 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




research. Please
improve it by
verifying the claims
made and adding
references.
Statements
consisting only of
original research
may be removed.
                                         28 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




More details may
be available on the
talk page. (February
2009)

This article needs
attention from an
expert on the
subject. See the
                                         29 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




talk page for details.
WikiProject Law or
the Law Portal may
be able to help
recruit an expert.
(February 2009)
 



                                         30 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Civil procedure in
the United States

Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure
 Doctrines of civil
procedure
 Jurisdiction
Subject-matter
                                         31 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




jurisdiction
 Diversity
jurisdiction
 Personal
jurisdiction
 Removal
jurisdiction
 
Venue Change of
                                         32 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




venue
 Forum non
conveniens
 
Pleadings Service
of process
 Complaint Cause
of action
 Case Information
                                         33 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Statement
 Class action Class
Action Fairness Act
of 2005
 




Demurrer
                                         34 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 Answer Affirmative
defense
 
Reply
 Counterclaim
 Crossclaim
 Joinder
Indispensable party
 
                                         35 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Impleader
 Interpleader
 Intervention
 Other Motions
 
Pre-trial procedure
Discovery
 Initial Conference
 Interrogatories
                                         36 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 Depositions
 Request for
Admissions
 Request for
production
 
Resolution without
trial Default
judgment
                                         37 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 Summary judgment
 Voluntary dismissal
 Involuntary
dismissal
 Settlement
 
Trial Parties Plaintiff
 Defendant
 
                                         38 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Pro Se
 Jury Voir dire
 
Burden of proof
 Judgment
Judgment as a
matter of law
(JMOL)
 Renewed JMOL
                                         39 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




(JNOV)
 Motion to set aside
judgment
 New trial
 Remedy Injunction
 Damages
 Attorney's fees
American rule
 English rule
                                         40 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
Declaratory
judgment
 




Appeal Mandamus
                                         41 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 Certiorari
 




In law, a class
action or a
representative
action is a form of
                                         42 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




lawsuit in which a
large group of
people collectively
bring a claim to
court and/or in
which a class of
defendants is being
sued. This form of
collective lawsuit
                                         43 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




originated in the
United States and is
still predominantly a
U.S. phenomenon,
at least the U.S.
variant of it.
However, in several
European countries
with civil law
                                         44 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




different from the
English common
law principle (which
is used by U.S.
courts), changes
have been made in
recent years that
allow consumer
organizations to
                                         45 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




bring claims on
behalf of large
groups of
consumers.

Contents
    1 U.S. federal
class actions 1.1
State class actions
                                         46 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 1.2 History
 
2 Advantages
 3 Criticisms
 4 Ethics
 5 Defendant class
action
 6 Mass actions
 7 Austria
                                         47 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 8 Canada
 9 France
 10 Germany
 11 Italy
 12 India
 13 Netherlands
 14 Spain
 15 Switzerland
 16 See also
                                         48 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 17 Notes
 18 External links
18.1 U.S. law
 18.2 E.U. law
 18.3 Proposals to
expand European
class action law

 U.S. federal class
                                         49 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




actions
 
In the United States
federal courts, class
actions are
governed by
Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure
Rule 23] and 28
                                         50 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




U.S.C.A. § 1332
(d).[1]
 
Class action
lawsuits may be
brought in federal
court if the claim
arises under federal
law, or if the claim
                                         51 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




falls under 28
USCA § 1332 (d).
Under § 1332 (d)
(2) the federal
district courts have
original jurisdiction
over any civil action
where the amount
in controversy
                                         52 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




exceeds
$5,000,000 and any
of
 1.any member of a
class of plaintiffs is
a citizen of a State
different from any
defendant;
 2.any member of a
                                         53 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




class of plaintiffs is
a foreign state or a
citizen or subject of
a foreign state and
any defendant is a
citizen of a State; or
 3.any member of a
class of plaintiffs is
a citizen of a State
                                         54 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




and any defendant
is a foreign state or
a citizen or subject
of a foreign state.[2]
 
Nationwide plaintiff
classes are
possible, but such
suits must have a
                                         55 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




commonality of
issues across state
lines. This may be
difficult if the civil
law in the various
states lack
significant
commonalities.
Large class actions
                                         56 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




brought in federal
court frequently are
consolidated for
pre-trial purposes
through the device
of multidistrict
litigation
(MDL).[citation
needed] It is also
                                         57 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




possible to bring
class action
lawsuits under state
law, and in some
cases the court may
extend its
jurisdiction to all the
members of the
class, including out
                                         58 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




of state (or even
internationally) as
the key element is
the jurisdiction that
the court has over
the defendant.
 
Typically, federal
courts are thought
                                         59 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




to be more
favorable for
defendants, and
state courts more
favorable for
plaintiffs. Many
class action cases
are filed initially in
state court. The
                                         60 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




defendant will
frequently try to
remove the case to
federal court. The
Class Action
Fairness Act of
2005[3] increases
defendants' ability
to remove state
                                         61 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




cases to federal
court by giving
federal courts
original jurisdiction
for all class actions
with damages
exceeding
$5,000,000,
exclusive of interest
                                         62 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




and costs.[4] It
should be noted,
however, that the
Class Action
Fairness Act
contains carve-outs
for, 'inter alia',
shareholder class
action lawsuits
                                         63 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




covered by the
Private Securities
Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 and
those concerning
internal corporate
governance issues
(the latter typically
being brought as
                                         64 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




shareholder
derivative actions in
the state courts of
Delaware, the state
of incorporation of
most large
corporations).[5]
 
The procedure for
                                         65 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




filing a class action
is to file suit with
one or several
named plaintiffs on
behalf of a
proposed class.
The proposed class
must consist of a
group of individuals
                                         66 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




or business entities
that have suffered a
common injury or
injuries. Typically
these cases result
from an action on
the part of a
business or a
particular product
                                         67 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




defect or policy that
applied to all
proposed class
members in a
typical manner.
After the complaint
is filed, the plaintiff
must file a motion to
have the class
                                         68 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




certified. In some
cases class
certification may
require discovery in
order to determine
its size and if the
proposed class
meets the standard
for class
                                         69 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




certification.
 
Upon the motion to
certify the class, the
defendants may
object to whether
the issues are
appropriately
handled as a class
                                         70 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




action, to whether
the named plaintiffs
are sufficiently
representative of
the class, and to
their relationship
with the law firm or
firms handling the
case. The court will
                                         71 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




also examine the
ability of the firm to
prosecute the claim
for the plaintiffs,
and their resources
for dealing with
class actions.
 
Due process
                                         72 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




requires in most
cases that notice
describing the class
action be sent,
published, or
broadcast to class
members. As part
of this notice
procedure, there
                                         73 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




may have to be
several notices, first
a notice giving class
members the
opportunity to opt
out of the class, i.e.
if individuals wish to
proceed with their
own litigation they
                                         74 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




are entitled to do
so, only to the
extent that they give
timely notice to the
class counsel or the
court that they are
opting out. Second,
if there is a
settlement
                                         75 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




proposal, the court
will usually direct
the class counsel to
send a settlement
notice to all the
members of the
certified class,
informing them of
the details of the
                                         76 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




proposed
settlement.
 
In federal civil
procedure law,
which has also
been accepted by
approximately 35
states (through
                                         77 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




adoption of state
civil procedure rules
similar to the
federal rules), the
class action must
have certain definite
characteristics:
 1.the class must be
so large as to make
                                         78 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




individual suits
impractical,
 2.there must be
legal or factual
claims in common
 3.the claims or
defenses must be
typical of the
plaintiffs or
                                         79 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




defendants, and
 4.the
representative
parties must
adequately protect
the interests of the
class. These four
requirements are
often summarized
                                         80 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




as CANT:
commonality,
adequacy,
numerosity, and
typicality. In many
cases, the party
seeking certification
must also show
 5.that common
                                         81 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




issues between the
class and the
defendants will
predominate the
proceedings, as
opposed to
individual
fact-specific
conflicts between
                                         82 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




class members and
the defendants and
 6.that the class
action, instead of
individual litigation,
is a superior vehicle
for resolution of the
disputes at hand.
 
                                         83 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 State class actions
 
Since 1938, many
states have
adopted rules
similar to the FRCP.
However, some
states like California
have civil procedure
                                         84 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




systems which
deviate significantly
from the federal
rules; the California
Codes provide for
four separate types
of class actions. As
a result, there are
two separate
                                         85 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




treatises devoted
solely to the
complex topic of
California class
actions.[6] Some
states, such as
Virginia, do not
provide for any
class actions, while
                                         86 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




others, such as
New York, limit the
types of claims that
may be brought as
class actions.
 
 History
 
The ancestor of the
                                         87 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




class action was
what modern
observers call
"group litigation,"
which appears to
have been quite
common in
medieval England
from about 1200
                                         88 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




onward.[7] These
lawsuits involved
groups of people
either suing or
being sued in
actions at common
law. These groups
were usually based
on existing societal
                                         89 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




structures like
villages, towns,
parishes, and
guilds. What is
striking about these
early cases is that
unlike modern
courts, the medieval
English courts
                                         90 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




never questioned
the right of the
actual plaintiffs to
sue on behalf of a
group or a few
representatives to
defend an entire
group.[8]
 
                                         91 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




As UCLA law
professor Stephen
Yeazell has pointed
out, the most likely
reason is that the
abysmally poor
transportation,
communications,
and administrative
                                         92 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




apparatus of
medieval times
made it impossible
for the English
sovereign to directly
manage the entire
country in terms of
individuals; it was
easier to structure
                                         93 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




society by imposing
obligations upon
groups which were
enforced by the
sporadic use of
force.[9] In turn,
lawyers and judges
who operated the
king's system of
                                         94 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




justice in a society
strictly organized
into groups would
not question the
right of a group to
sue or be sued
because to do so
would bring into
question the entire
                                         95 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




group-oriented
society in which
they operated.[9]
 
From 1400 to 1700,
group litigation
gradually switched
from being the norm
in England to the
                                         96 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




exception.[10] The
development of the
concept of the
corporation led to
the wealthy
supporters of the
corporate form
becoming
suspicious of all
                                         97 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




unincorporated
legal entities, which
in turn led to the
modern concept of
the unincorporated
or voluntary
association.[11] The
tumultuous history
of the Wars of the
                                         98 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Roses and then the
Star Chamber
resulted in periods
during which the
common law courts
were frequently
paralyzed, and out
of the confusion the
Court of Chancery
                                         99 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




emerged with
exclusive
jurisdiction over
group litigation.[12]
 
Chancery cases on
group litigation after
1700 were a totally
incoherent mess,
                                         100 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




which Yeazell has
explained by
pointing to the
trends towards
fragmentation and
individualism in
English society
during that period;
the resulting
                                         101 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




societal pressures
ultimately led to the
Reform Act
1832.[13] The
problem which
confounded
Chancery was the
shift from
representation
                                         102 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




based on the
consent of a group
to representation
based on a
common interest,
such as holding
shares of a
corporation.[14]
Group litigation has
                                         103 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




struggled with the
tension between
consent and
interest ever since.
 
By 1850,
Parliament had
enacted several
statutes on a
                                         104 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




case-by-case basis
to deal with issues
regularly faced by
certain types of
organizations, like
joint-stock
companies, and
with the impetus for
most types of group
                                         105 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




litigation removed, it
went into a steep
decline in English
jurisprudence from
which it never
recovered.[15] It
was further
weakened by the
fact that equity
                                         106 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




pleading in general
was falling into
disfavor, which
culminated in the
Judicature Acts of
1874 and 1875.[15]
Group litigation was
essentially dead in
England after 1850.
                                         107 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
Group litigation
survived in the
United States only
thanks to the
influence of
Supreme Court
Associate Justice
Joseph Story, who
                                         108 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




imported it in a
rather mangled
form into U.S. law
through summary
discussions in his
two equity treatises
as well as his
famous opinion in
West v. Randall
                                         109 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




(1820). Although
Story was highly
intelligent and
familiar with all the
relevant English
precedents, he
merely summarized
them in a confused
fashion because he
                                         110 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




"could not conceive
of a modern
function or a
coherent theory for
representative
litigation: why?"[16]
Like most
Americans then and
since, Story took
                                         111 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




individualism for
granted; on that
basis, he simply
could not
comprehend a rule
that allowed a court
to bind someone
who had never
been a party to
                                         112 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




litigation purportedly
conducted on his
behalf.[17]
 
The oldest
predecessor to the
class action rule
was Equity Rule 48,
promulgated in
                                         113 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




1833, which
allowed for
representative suits
in situations where
there were too
many individual
parties (which now
forms the first
requirement for
                                         114 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




class action
litigation,
numerosity).[18]
However, this rule
did not allow such
suits to bind
similarly situated
absent parties,
which rendered the
                                         115 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




rule almost entirely
useless and was a
direct reflection of
Story's inability to
understand the old
English Chancery
precedents.[19]
Story's confusion
was apparently
                                         116 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




typical of 19th
century American
lawyers, as even
the legendary
Christopher
Columbus Langdell
also could not
understand the old
cases.[17]
                                         117 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
Within ten years,
the Supreme Court
interpreted Rule 48
in such a way so
that it could apply to
absent parties
under certain
circumstances, but
                                         118 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




only by ignoring the
plain meaning of
the rule.[20] In the
early 20th century,
Equity Rule 48 was
replaced with Equity
Rule 38 as part of a
major restructuring
of the Equity Rules,
                                         119 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




and when federal
courts merged their
legal and equitable
procedural systems
in 1938, Equity Rule
38 became Rule 23
of the Federal
Rules of Civil
Procedure.
                                         120 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
A major revision of
the FRCP in 1966
radically
transformed Rule
23, made the
opt-out class action
the standard option,
and gave birth to
                                         121 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




the modern class
action. Entire
treatises have been
written since to
summarize the
huge mass of law
that sprang up from
the 1966 revision of
Rule 23.[21] Just as
                                         122 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




medieval group
litigation bound all
members of the
group regardless of
whether they all
actually appeared in
court, the modern
class action binds
all members of the
                                         123 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




class, with the
exception of those
who appear and
object.
 
The Advisory
Committee that
drafted the new
Rule 23 in the
                                         124 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




mid-1960s was
influenced by two
major
developments. First
was the suggestion
of Harry Kalven, Jr.
and Maurice
Rosenfeld in 1941
that class action
                                         125 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




litigation by
individual
shareholders on
behalf of all
shareholders of a
company could
effectively
supplement direct
government
                                         126 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




regulation of
securities markets
and other similar
markets.[22] The
second
development was
the rise of the
African-American
civil rights
                                         127 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




movement,
environmentalism,
and
consumerism.[23]
As expected, the
groups behind
these movements,
as well as many
others in the 1960s,
                                         128 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




1970s, and 1980s
all turned to class
actions as a means
for achieving their
goals. For example,
a 1978
environmental law
treatise reprinted
the entire text of
                                         129 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Rule 23 and
mentioned "class
actions" 14 times in
its index.[24]
 
Of course,
businesses targeted
by class actions for
inflicting massive
                                         130 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




aggregate harm
have sought ways
to avoid class
actions altogether.
In the 1990s, the
U.S. Supreme
Court issued a
number of decisions
which strengthened
                                         131 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




the "federal policy
favoring
arbitration".[25] In
response, lawyers
have added
provisions to
consumer contracts
of adhesion called
"collective action
                                         132 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




waivers". In 1999
the National
Arbitration Forum
began advocating
that such contracts
should be drafted
so as to force
consumers to waive
the right to a class
                                         133 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




action completely,
and such provisions
have become very
popular among
businesses.[25] As
of November 2007,
the legal validity of
contracts of
adhesion with class
                                         134 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




action waivers is
unclear, and courts
have rendered
mixed and
sometimes
contradictory
opinions.[26]
 
 Advantages
                                         135 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
Class action
lawsuits may offer a
number of
advantages[27]
because they
aggregate a large
number of
individualized
                                         136 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




claims into one
representational
lawsuit.
 
First, aggregation
can increase the
efficiency of the
legal process, and
lower the costs of
                                         137 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




litigation.[28] In
cases with common
questions of law
and fact,
aggregation of
claims into a class
action may avoid
the necessity of
repeating "days of
                                         138 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




the same
witnesses, exhibits
and issues from trial
to trial." Jenkins v.
Raymark Indus.
Inc., 782 F.2d 468,
473 (5th Cir. 1986)
(granting
certification of a
                                         139 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




class action
involving asbestos).
 
Second, a class
action may
overcome "the
problem that small
recoveries do not
provide the
                                         140 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




incentive for any
individual to bring a
solo action
prosecuting his or
her rights."
Amchem Prods.,
Inc. v. Windsor, 521
U.S. 591, 617
(1997) (quoting
                                         141 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Mace v. Van Ru
Credit Corp., 109
F.3d 388, 344 (7th
Cir. 1997)). "A class
action solves this
problem by
aggregating the
relatively paltry
potential recoveries
                                         142 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




into something
worth someone’s
(usually an
attorney’s) labor."
Amchem Prods.,
Inc., 521 U.S. at
617 (quoting Mace,
109 F.3d at 344). In
other words, a class
                                         143 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




action ensures that
a defendant who
engages in
widespread harm –
but does so
minimally against
each individual
plaintiff – must
compensate those
                                         144 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




individuals for their
injuries. For
example, thousands
of shareholders of a
public company
may have losses
too small to justify
separate lawsuits,
but a class action
                                         145 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




can be brought
efficiently on behalf
of all shareholders.
Perhaps even more
important than
compensation is
that class treatment
of claims may be
the only way to
                                         146 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




impose the costs of
wrongdoing on the
wrongdoer, thus
deterring future
wrongdoing.
 
Third, class action
cases may be
brought to
                                         147 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




purposely change
behavior of a class
of which the
defendant is a
member. Landeros
v. Flood was a
landmark case used
to purposely
change the
                                         148 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




behavior of doctors,
and encourage
them to report
suspected child
abuse. Otherwise,
they would face the
threat of civil action
for damages in tort
proximately flowing
                                         149 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




from the failure to
report the
suspected injuries.
Previously, many
physicians had
remained reluctant
to report cases of
apparent child
abuse, despite
                                         150 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




existing law that
required it.
 
Fourth, in "limited
fund" cases, a class
action ensures that
all plaintiffs receive
relief and that
early-filing plaintiffs
                                         151 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




do not raid the fund
(i.e., the defendant)
of all its assets
before other
plaintiffs may be
compensated. See
Ortiz v. Fibreboard
Corp., 527 U.S. 815
(1999). A class
                                         152 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




action in such a
situation centralizes
all claims into one
venue where a
court can equitably
divide the assets
amongst all the
plaintiffs if they win
the case.
                                         153 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
Finally, a class
action avoids the
situation where
different court
rulings could create
"incompatible
standards" of
conduct for the
                                         154 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




defendant to follow.
See Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(1)(A). For
example, a court
might certify a case
for class treatment
where a number of
individual
bond-holders sue to
                                         155 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




determine whether
they may convert
their bonds to
common stock.
Refusing to litigate
the case in one trial
could result in
different outcomes
and inconsistent
                                         156 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




standards of
conduct for the
defendant
corporation. Thus,
courts will generally
allow a class action
in such a situation.
See, e.g., Van
Gemert v. Boeing
                                         157 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Co., 259 F. Supp.
125 (S.D.N.Y.
1966).
 
Whether a class
action is superior to
individual litigation
depends on the
case, and is
                                         158 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




determined by the
judge's ruling on a
motion for class
certification. The
Advisory Committee
Note to Rule 23, for
example, states that
mass torts are
ordinarily "not
                                         159 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




appropriate" for
class treatment.
Class treatment
may not improve
the efficiency of a
mass tort because
the claims
frequently involve
individualized
                                         160 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




issues of law and
fact that will have to
be re-tried on an
individual basis.
See Castano v. Am.
Tobacco Co., 84
F.3d 734 (5th Cir.
1996) (rejecting
nationwide class
                                         161 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




action against
tobacco
companies). Mass
torts also involve
high individual
damage awards;
thus, the absence
of class treatment
will not impede the
                                         162 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




ability of individual
claimants to seek
justice. See id.
Other cases,
however, may be
more conducive to
class treatment.
 
The preamble to the
                                         163 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Class Action
Fairness Act of
2005, passed by
the United States
Congress, found:
 




                                         164 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Class-action
lawsuits are an
important and
valuable part of the
legal system when
they permit the fair
and efficient
resolution of
legitimate claims of
                                         165 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




numerous parties
by allowing the
claims to be
aggregated into a
single action
against a defendant
that has allegedly
caused harm.
 
                                         166 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 Criticisms
 
There are several
criticisms of class
action lawsuits.[29]
The preamble to the
Class Action
Fairness Act stated
that some abusive
                                         167 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




class actions
harmed class
members with
legitimate claims
and defendants that
have acted
responsibly;
adversely affected
interstate
                                         168 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




commerce; and
undermined public
respect for the
country's judicial
system.
 
Class members
often receive little or
no benefit from
                                         169 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




class actions.
Examples cited for
this include large
fees for the
attorneys, while
leaving class
members with
coupons or other
awards of little or no
                                         170 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




value; unjustified
awards are made to
certain plaintiffs at
the expense of
other class
members; and
confusing notices
are published that
prevent class
                                         171 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




members from
being able to fully
understand and
effectively exercise
their rights.
 
For example, in the
United States, class
lawsuits sometimes
                                         172 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




bind all class
members with a low
settlement. These
"coupon
settlements" (which
usually allow the
plaintiffs to receive
minimal benefit
such as a small
                                         173 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




check or a coupon
for future services
or products with the
defendant
company) are a
way for a defendant
to forestall major
liability by
precluding a large
                                         174 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




number of people
from litigating their
claims separately,
to recover
reasonable
compensation for
the damages.
However, existing
law requires judicial
                                         175 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




approval of all class
action settlements,
and in most cases
class members are
given a chance to
opt out of class
settlement, though
class members,
despite opt-out
                                         176 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




notices, may be
unaware of their
right to opt-out
because they did
not receive the
notice, did not read
it, or did not
understand it.
 
                                         177 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




The Class Action
Fairness Act of
2005 addresses
these concerns.
Coupon
Settlements may be
scrutinized by an
independent expert
before judicial
                                         178 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




approval in order to
ensure that the
settlement will be of
value to the class
members. 28
U.S.C.A. 1712(d).
Further, if the action
provides for
settlement in
                                         179 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




coupons, the
attorney must take
a corresponding
part of his fee in
coupons. 28
U.S.C.A. 1712(a).
 
 Ethics
 
                                         180 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Class action cases
present significant
ethical challenges.
Defendants can
hold reverse
auctions and any of
several parties can
engage in collusive
settlement
                                         181 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




discussions.
Subclasses may
have interests that
diverge greatly from
the class, but may
be treated the
same. Proposed
settlements could
offer some groups
                                         182 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




(such as former
customers) much
greater benefits
than others.[30]
 
 Defendant class
action
 
Although normally
                                         183 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




plaintiffs are the
class, defendant
class actions are
also possible. For
example, in 2005,
the Archdiocese of
Portland was sued
as part of the
Catholic priest
                                         184 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




sex-abuse scandal.
All parishioners of
the Archdiocese's
churches were cited
as a defendant
class. This was
done to include
their assets (local
churches) in any
                                         185 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




settlement.[7]
Where both the
plaintiffs and the
defendants have
been organized into
court-approved
classes, the action
is called a bilateral
class action.
                                         186 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
 Mass actions
 
In a class action,
the plaintiff seeks
court approval to
litigate on behalf of
a group of
similarly-situated
                                         187 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




persons. Not every
plaintiff looks for, or
could obtain, such
approval. As a
procedural
alternative,
plaintiff's counsel
may attempt to sign
up every
                                         188 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




similarly-situated
person that counsel
can find as a client.
Plaintiff's counsel
can then join the
claims of all of
these persons in
one complaint, a
so-called "mass
                                         189 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




action," hoping to
have the same
efficiencies and
economic leverage
as if a class had
been certified.
 
Because mass
actions operate
                                         190 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




outside the detailed
procedures laid out
for class actions,
they can pose
special difficulties
for both plaintiffs,
defendants, and the
court. For example,
settlement of class
                                         191 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




actions follows a
predictable path of
negotiation with
class counsel and
representatives,
court scrutiny, and
notice. There may
not be a way to
uniformly settle all
                                         192 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




of the many claims
brought via a mass
action. Some states
permit plaintiff's
counsel to settle for
all the mass action
plaintiffs according
to a majority vote,
for example. Other
                                         193 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




states, such as New
Jersey, require
each plaintiff to
approve the
settlement of that
plaintiff's own
individual claims.
 
 Austria
                                         194 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
The Austrian Code
of Civil Procedure
(Zivilprozessordnun
g – ZPO) does not
provide for a special
proceeding for
complex class
action litigation.
                                         195 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




However, Austrian
consumer
organizations
(Verein für
Konsumenteninform
ation/VKI and the
Federal Chamber of
Labour/Bundesarbe
itskammer) have, in
                                         196 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




recent years,
brought claims on
behalf of hundreds
or even thousands
of consumers. This
technique, soon
labelled as “class
action Austrian
style”, allows for a
                                         197 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




significant reduction
of overall costs. The
Austrian Supreme
Court, in a recent
judgment, has
confirmed the legal
admissibility of
these lawsuits
under the condition
                                         198 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




that all claims are
essentially based
on the same
grounds.
 
The Austrian
Parliament has
unanimously
requested the
                                         199 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Austrian Federal
Minister for Justice
to examine the
possibility of new
legislation providing
for a cost-effective
and appropriate
way to deal with
mass claims.
                                         200 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Together with the
Austrian Ministry for
Social Security,
Generations and
Consumer
Protection, the
Justice Ministry
opened the
discussion with a
                                         201 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




conference held in
Vienna in June,
2005. With the aid
of a group of
experts from many
fields, the Justice
Ministry began
drafting the new law
in September,
                                         202 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




2005. With the
individual positions
varying greatly, a
political consensus
could not be
reached.[31]
 
 Canada
 
                                         203 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Provincial laws in
Canada allow class
actions. All
provinces permit
plaintiff classes and
some permit
defendant classes.
Quebec was the
first province to
                                         204 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




enact class
proceedings
legislation in 1978.
Ontario was next
with the Class
Proceedings Act,
1992. As of 2008, 9
of 10 provinces
have enacted
                                         205 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




comprehensive
class actions
legislation. In Prince
Edward Island,
where no
comprehensive
legislation exists,
following the
decision of the
                                         206 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Supreme Court of
Canada in Western
Canadian Shopping
Centres Inc. v.
Dutton, [2001] 2
S.C.R. 534, class
actions may be
advanced under a
local rule of court.
                                         207 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




The Federal Court
of Canada permits
class actions under
Part V.1. of the
Federal Courts
Rules.
 
Legislation in
Saskatchewan,
                                         208 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Manitoba, Ontario,
and Nova Scotia
expressly or by
judicial opinion
have been read to
allow for what are
informally known as
national "opt-out"
class
                                         209 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




actions,whereby
residents of other
provinces may be
included in the
class definition and
potentially be bound
by the court's
judgment on
common issues
                                         210 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




unless they opt-out
in a prescribed
manner and time.
Court rulings have
determined that this
permits a court in
one province to
include residents of
other provinces in
                                         211 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




the class action on
an "opt-out" basis.
 
Recent judicial
opinions have
indicated that
provincial legislative
national opt-out
powers should not
                                         212 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




be exercised to
interfere with the
ability of another
province to certify a
parallel class action
for residents of
other provinces.
The first court to
certify will generally
                                         213 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




exclude residents of
provinces whose
courts have certified
a parallel class
action. However, in
the Vioxx litigation,
two provincial
courts recently
certified overlapping
                                         214 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




class actions
whereby Canadian
residents are class
members in two
class actions in two
provinces.[32] Both
decisions are under
appeal.
 
                                         215 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




The largest class
action suit to date in
Canada was settled
in 2005 after Nora
Bernard initiated
efforts that led to an
estimated 79,000
survivors of
Canada's
                                         216 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




residential school
system suing the
Canadian
government. The
settlement
amounted to
upwards of $5
billion dollars.[33]
 
                                         217 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 France
 
Under French law,
an association can
represent the
collective interests
of consumers;
however, each
claimant must be
                                         218 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




individually named
in the lawsuit. On
January 4, 2005,
President Chirac
urged changes that
would provide
greater consumer
protection. A draft
bill was proposed in
                                         219 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




April 2006. Under
the proposals the
court will be able to
decide whether to
allow an action
brought by an
association on
behalf of
consumers (which
                                         220 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




must comprise at
least two
individuals) for
goods purchased
under a standard
contract. After such
an action is
brought, the
association would
                                         221 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




be entitled to
identify additional
consumers for a
one-month period.
The court would
determine the
damages that must
be awarded to the
consumers who
                                         222 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




have opted-in to the
proceedings, with
damages limited to
2000 Euros;
contingent fees for
attorneys would be
barred.[34] The
president of the
French Supreme
                                         223 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Court recently
declared that "class
actions are
inescapable."[35]
Nevertheless, the
bill was withdrawn
in January 2007 at
the request of
Minister of Health
                                         224 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Xavier Bertrand.[36]
 
 Germany
 
On November 1,
2005, Germany
enacted the “Act on
Model Case
Proceedings in
                                         225 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Disputes under
Capital Markets
Law (Capital
Markets Model
Case Act)” allowing
sample proceedings
to be brought
before the courts in
litigation arising
                                         226 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




from mass capital
markets
transactions. It does
not apply to any
other civil law
proceeding. It is not
like class actions in
the United States –
it only applies to
                                         227 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




parties who have
already filed suit
and does not allow
a claim to be
brought in the name
of an unknown
group of claimants.
The effects of the
new law will be
                                         228 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




monitored over the
next five years. It
contains a ‘sunset
clause’, and it will
automatically cease
to have effect on
November 1, 2010,
unless the
legislature decides
                                         229 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




to prolong the law,
or extend it to other
mass civil case
proceedings.[37]
 
 Italy
 
Italy has class
action legislation
                                         230 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




now. Consumer
associations can file
claims on behalf of
groups of
consumers to
obtain judicial
orders against
corporations that
cause injury or
                                         231 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




damage to
consumers. These
types of claims are
increasing and
Italian courts have
recently allowed
them against banks
that continue to
apply compound
                                         232 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




interest on retail
clients’ current
account overdrafts.
The introduction of
class actions is on
the new
government’s
agenda. On the
19th of November
                                         233 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




2007 the Senato
della Repubblica
passed a class
action law in
Finanziara 2008, a
financial document
for the economy
management of the
government. Now
                                         234 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




(from 10 December
2007), in order of
Italian legislation
system, the law is
before the House
and has to be
passed also by the
Camera dei
Deputati, the
                                         235 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




second house of
Italian Parliament,
to become an
effective law.[38] In
2004, the Italian
parliament
considered the
introduction of a
type of class action
                                         236 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




lawsuit, specifically
in the area of
consumers’ law. To
date, no such law
has been enacted,
however scholars
demonstrated that
class actions (azioni
rappresentative) do
                                         237 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




not contrast with
Italian principles of
civil procedure.
Class Action is
regulated by art.
140 bis of the Italian
consumers' code
and will be in force
from 1 July
                                         238 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




2009.[39][40][41][42
]
 
 India
 
Decisions of the
Indian Supreme
Court in the 1980s
loosened strict
                                         239 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




locus standi
requirements to
permit the filing of
suits on behalf of
rights deprived
sections of society
by public minded
individuals or
bodies. Although
                                         240 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




not strictly "class
action litigation" as
it is understood in
American law,
Public Interest
Litigation arose out
of the wide powers
of judicial review
granted to the
                                         241 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Supreme Court of
India and the
various High Courts
under Articles 32
and 226 of the
Constitution of India
respectively. The
sort of remedies
sought from courts
                                         242 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




in Public Interest
Litigation go beyond
mere award of
damages to all
affected groups and
have sometimes
(controversially)
gone on to include
Court monitoring of
                                         243 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




the implementation
of legislation and
even the framing of
guidelines in the
absence of
Parliamentary
legislation.
 
However, this
                                         244 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




innovative
jurisprudence did
not help the victims
of the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy who were
unable to fully
prosecute a class
action litigation (as
understood in the
                                         245 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




American sense)
against Union
Carbide due to
procedural rules
that would make
such litigation
impossible to
conclude and
unwieldy to carry
                                         246 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




out. Instead, the
Government of
India exercised its
right of parens
patriae to
appropriate all the
claims of the victims
and proceeded to
litigate on their
                                         247 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




behalf, first in the
New York courts
and later, in the
Indian courts.
Ultimately, the
matter was settled
between the Union
of India and Union
Carbide (in a
                                         248 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




settlement
overseen by the
Supreme Court of
India) for a sum of
Rs. 760 crores
(about 400 million
dollars) as a
complete settlement
of all claims of all
                                         249 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




victims for all time
to come.
 
Public Interest
Litigation has now
broadened in scope
to cover larger and
larger groups of
citizens who may
                                         250 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




be affected by
Government
inaction. Recent
examples of this
trend include the
conversion of all
public transport in
the city of Delhi
from Diesel engines
                                         251 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




to CNG engines on
the basis of the
orders of the Delhi
High Court; the
monitoring of forest
use by the High
Courts and the
Supreme Court to
ensure that there is
                                         252 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




no unjustified loss
of forest cover; and
the directions
mandating the
disclosure of assets
of electoral
candidates for the
Houses of
Parliament and
                                         253 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




State Assembly.
 
However, of late,
the Supreme Court
has observed that
the PIL has tended
to become a means
to gain publicity or
obtain relief
                                         254 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




contrary to
constitutionally valid
legislation and
policy. Observers
point out that many
High Courts and
certain Supreme
Court judges are
reluctant to
                                         255 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




entertain PILs, even
those filed by well
known
Non-Governmental
Organizations and
activists, citing
concerns of balance
of powers and the
importance of
                                         256 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




democratic law
making.
 
 Netherlands
 
Dutch law allows
collective actions
brought by
associations on
                                         257 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




behalf of injured
parties seeking a
judicial declaration
that the company is
liable for the
damage it has
caused (section
3:305a Dutch Civil
Code). Moreover, a
                                         258 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




settlement
agreement with the
association as one
of the parties, can
be declared binding
for all injured
parties by the
Amsterdam Court of
Appeal (section
                                         259 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




7:907 Dutch Civil
Code). The injured
parties have an
opt-out right.
 
 Spain
 
Spanish law allows
nominated
                                         260 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




consumer
associations to take
action to protect the
interests of
consumers. A
number of groups
already have the
power to bring
collective or class
                                         261 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




actions: certain
consumer
associations,
bodies legally
constituted to
defend the
‘collective interest’
and groups of
injured parties.[43]
                                         262 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
Recent changes to
Spanish civil
procedure rules
include the
introduction of a
quasi-class action
right for certain
consumer
                                         263 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




associations to
claim damages on
behalf of
unidentified classes
of consumers. The
rules require
consumer
associations to
represent an
                                         264 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




adequate number of
affected parties who
have suffered the
same harm. Also
any judgment made
by the Spanish
court will list the
individual
beneficiaries or, if
                                         265 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




that is not possible,
conditions that need
to be fulfilled for a
party to benefit from
a judgment.
 
 Switzerland
 
Swiss law does not
                                         266 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




allow for any form
of class action.
When the
government
proposed a new
federal code of civil
procedure in 2006,
replacing the
cantonal codes of
                                         267 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




civil procedure, it
rejected the
introduction of class
actions, arguing
that:
 




                                         268 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




[It] is alien to
European legal
thought to allow
somebody to
exercise rights on
the behalf of a large
number of people if
these do not
participate as
                                         269 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




parties in the action.
... Moreover, the
class action is
controversial even
in its country of
origin, the U.S.,
because it can
result in significant
procedural
                                         270 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




problems. ... Finally,
the class action can
be openly or
discretely abused.
The sums sued for
are usually
enormous, so that
the respondent can
be forced to
                                         271 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




concede, if they do
not want to face
sudden huge
indebtness and
insolvency
(so-called legal
blackmail).
 
—[44]
                                         272 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 
 See also
 Dukes v. Wal-Mart,
the largest
class-action lawsuit
to date
 List of class action
lawsuits
 Public Interest
                                         273 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Litigation, a similar
system adopted in
India
 Bill of Peace, an
English
predecessor to
class actions
 Collective redress,
a similar legal
                                         274 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




framework currently
under development
in the European
Union
 
 Notes
 
1. Rule 23
 2. 28 U.S.C. §
                                         275 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




1332(d)(2)
 3. Class Action
Fairness Act Public
Law 109-2, 119
Stat. 4
 4. 28 U.S.C.A. §
1332(d)
 5. William B.
Rubenstein,
                                         276 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




"Understanding the
Class Action
Fairness Act of
2005" (briefing
paper)
 6. See Cohelan on
California Class
Actions and
California Class
                                         277 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Actions: Practice
and Procedure by
Elizabeth Cabraser
et al.
 7. Stephen C.
Yeazell, From
Medieval Group
Litigation to the
Modern Class
                                         278 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Action (New Haven:
Yale University
Press, 1987), 38.
 8. Yeazell, 38–40.
 9. a b Yeazell,
82–86.
 10. Yeazell, 100.
 11. Yeazell,
124–125.
                                         279 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 12. Yeazell,
125–132.
 13. Yeazell,
173–175.
 14. Yeazell,
175–176.
 15. a b Yeazell,
210–212.
 16. Yeazell, 219.
                                         280 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 17. a b Yeazell,
220.
 18. Deborah R.
Hensler, Nicholas
M. Pace, Bonita
Dombey-Moore,
Beth Giddens,
Jennifer Gross, Erik
K. Moller, Class
                                         281 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Action Dilemmas:
Pursuing Public
Goals for Private
Gain (Santa
Monica: RAND,
2000), 10–11.
 19. Yeazell, 221.
 20. Yeazell,
221–222.
                                         282 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 21. Yeazell, 229.
 22. Yeazell, 232.
 23. Yeazell,
240–244.
 24. Yeazell,
244–245.
 25. a b Giles M.
(2005). Opting Out
of Liability.
                                         283 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Michigan Law
Review.
 26. Quarles RD.
(2007). COURTS
DISAGREE: Is
Arbitration a “Class”
Act?. Alabama
Lawyer.
 27. Association of
                                         284 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Trial Lawyers of
America, Class
Action Press Kit
 28. [1]
 29. *Richard
Epstein, "Class
Actions: The Need
for a Hard Second
Look" Michael
                                         285 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Greve, "Harm-Less
Lawsuits? What's
Wrong with
Consumer Class
Actions"
 Jim Copland,
"Class Actions"
 
30. Ethical Issues In
                                         286 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Class Action
Settlements http://w
ww.jamesholmesla
w.com/Seminar%2
0paper.pdf
- Presented at an
ABA conference on
class actions in
2007. Excerpt:
                                         287 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




"Competing cases
can also provide
opportunities for
collusive settlement
discussions and
reverse auctions by
defendants anxious
to resolve their
exposure at the
                                         288 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




most economic
cost."
 31. [2]
 32. Ontario: Tiboni
v. Merck Frosst
Canada Ltd., [2008]
O.J. No. 2996.
Saskatchewan:
Wuttunee v. Merck
                                         289 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Frosst Canada Ltd.,
2008 SKQB 78
 33. Halifax Daily
News article on
Bernard in 2006
Archived at Arnold
Pizzo McKiggan
 34. [3]
 35. [4]
                                         290 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 36. [5]
 37. “Capital
Markets Model
Case Act” Der Bund
Retrieved July 16,
2006
 38. More
information Class
Action Italia
                                         291 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 39. art. 140 bis
 40. FAVA P.,
L’importabilità delle
class actions in
Italia, in Contratto e
Impresa 1/2004
FAVA P., Class
actions
all’italiana:“Paese
                                         292 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




che vai, usanza che
trovi” (l’esperienza
dei principali
ordinamenti giuridici
stranieri e le
proposte A.A.C.C.
n. 3838 e n. 3839),
in Corr. Giur.
3/2004; FAVA P.,
                                         293 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Class actions tra
efficientismo
processuale,
aumento di
competitività e
risparmio di spesa:
l’esame di un
contenzioso seriale
concreto (le S.U.
                                         294 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




sul rapporto tra
indennità di
amministrazione e
tredicesima), in
Corr. Giur. 2006,
535; FAVA P.,
Indennità di
amministrazione e
tredicesima: il “no
                                         295 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




secco” delle Sezioni
Unite. Un caso
pratico per valutare
le potenzialità delle
azioni
rappresentative
(class actions) nel
contenzioso seriale
italiano, Rass. Avv.
                                         296 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Stato 2005]
 41. [6]
 42. See also Class
Action Italia, Dalle
origini ad oggi and
Italy introduces
consumer class
actions or visit
Italian reference
                                         297 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




site for Class Action
Class Action
Community
 43. Class Actions
in Spain
 44. Message to
Parliament on the
Swiss Code of Civil
Procedure, Federal
                                         298 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




Journal 2006 p.
7221 et seq. The
quote, p. 7290, is
the author's
translation.
 
 External links
 
 U.S. law
                                         299 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 Manual for
Complex Litigation,
Fourth
 Stanford Securities
Class Action
Clearinghouse
 
 E.U. law
 THE
                                         300 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




INTRODUCTION
OF CLASS
ACTIONS IN
BELGIUM
 
 Proposals to
expand European
class action law
 Collective Redress
                                         301 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




in Europe
 George Parker, ,
EU considers
consumer class
action, Financial
Times, 4 March
2007
 John Beisner and
Charles Borden, On
                                         302 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




the Road to
Litigation Abuse:
The Continuing
Export of U.S.
Class Action and
Antitrust Law, U.S.
Chamber Institute
for Legal Reform,
Oct 2006
                                         303 / 304
ZOLOFT CLASS ACTION / ZOLOFT MASS TORT




 Mattil/Desoutter:
European class
action (german)
WM 12/2008

 




                                         304 / 304

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:5/9/2013
language:English
pages:304
yan tingting yan tingting
About