Predominance. Class Representative has shown “questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only indi- vidual members.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
Predominance. 16. This Court finds the predominance requirement is satisfied for settlement purposes because common questions present a significant aspect of the case and can be resolved for all Class members in a single common judgment.
Predominance. There is predominance. Common issues include: (a) whether Vioxx® carries a risk of cardiovascular disease, and (b) whether Merck adequately disclosed the risks of Vioxx. The resolution of these questions is relevant to essential elements of every Class member’s claims.
Predominance. The elements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met. The common questions of law and fact enumerated above predominate over the questions affecting only individual Class Members, and a class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The likelihood that individual Class Members will prosecute separate actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to conduct such litigation. Serial adjudication in numerous venues is not efficient, timely, or proper. Judicial resources will be unnecessarily depleted by resolution of individual claims. Joinder on an individual basis of hundreds or thousands of claimants in one suit would be impractical or impossible. Individualized rulings and judgments could result in inconsistent relief for similarly-situated Plaintiffs. 177. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty to be encountered in the maintenance of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.
Predominance. Questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, specifically the predominate question of whether Defendant’s uniform practice of processing NSF fees violated its standard form contract is common to all members of the Settlement Class and overwhelms any potentially individual issues that may arise. See In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219, 227-28 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that predominance is satisfied where “issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the class as a whole, predominate over those issues that are subject only to individualized proof”).
Predominance. Questions of law or fact common to the members of the class must predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The predominance test requires “[T]he existence of a group which is more bound together by a mutual interest in the settlement of common questions than it is divided by the individual members’ interest in matters peculiar to them.” Ex parte AmSouth Bancorporation, 717 So. 2d 357,363 (Ala. 1998). “In deciding whether common questions of fact or law predominate, a court must examine each plaintiffs cause of action and consider what value the resolution of the class-wide issue will have in each class member’s underlying cause of action.” Rxxxxxxx Metals Co. v, Hill, 825 So. 2d 100, 104 (Ala. 2002) (citation omitted). Stated differently, “To predominate, common issues must constitute a significant part of individual class members’ cases.” Cheminova, 779 So. 2d at 1181. In the case sub jxxxxx, the Class members’ claims are all dependent upon standardized RAL documents uniformly used by Block in a classwide manner. As such, resolution of the classwide issues based upon these uniform documents will be dispositive of each class member’s cause of action. Block contends that predominance is defeated as to each of the Plaintiffs’ claims because, Block says, the pertinent language of the RAL application is ambiguous, and therefore, presents individual questions of document interpretation. The Court disagrees. “An ambiguity exists where a term is reasonably subject to more than one interpretation.” Ex parte Axxxxx Realty Co., Inc., 827 So. 2d 104,107 (Ala. 2001). “The mere fact that adverse parties contend for different constructions does not in itself force the conclusion that the disputed language is ambiguous.” Id. Objectively viewed, the pertinent language of the RAL application is, obviously, not reasonably subject to more than one interpretation: “H&R Block may not use or disclose such tax return information or such other information for any purpose (not otherwise permitted under Treas. Reg. Sec. 301.7216-2) other than as stated herein...” The Court discerns no ambiguity here. This straightforward language means what it says. Block further contends that the predominance requirement is not met because the agency issue would require a determination of whether each individual class member reserved a right of control over Block’s actions. Block is incorrect. As discussed, the agency issue can be determined based solely upon the uniform la...
Predominance. “In determining whether the predominance standard is met, courts focus on the issue of liability, and if the liability issue is common to the class, common questions are held to predominate over individual ones.” Axxxxxxxx v. Peat, Marwick, Main & Co. Case Nx. 0000000/XX000000, (Xxx. Xx. Xxxx. Xxxx, Xx., July 10, 1992); In Re Kxxxxxxxx Medical Corp. Securities Litigation. 139 F.R.D. 74, 80, (D. Md. 1991). It is clear that several questions exist which align themselves perfectly with the issue of liability: whether or not Defendants’ acts activities and omissions amounted to violations of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act (the Consumer Protection Act), fraudulent concealment and breaches of Defendants’ fiduciary duties and obligations; whether or not Plaintiff and the Class members were damaged by the violation of the Consumer Protection Act; whether or not Defendants must disgorge the secret profit they realized in breach of their duties; and whether or not declaratory relief is mandated are central questions. However, the overall issue of this motion is whether the Defendants, while wearing the hat of fiduciary (agent), intentionally omitted facts that the proposed class (principal) had a right to be privy to. The Court of Appeals also narrowed the issue down to this particular point: [r]axxxx Xxxxx’x central allegation relates to H&R Block’s failure to disclose the ‘true nature’ of its RAL program, in particular, the various ways it stands to benefit from the customer’s agreement with the lending bank. The Court finds that the issue of liability is common to the class. Green, at 526. Defendants argue that the fraudulent omissions and negligent misrepresentations require proof of individual reliance and thus, certification under (b) (3) is inappropriate because individual issues of reliance will predominate over any common question of law and fact. The court stated in Kxxxxxxxx, “[i]n the event that individual issues of reliance pose difficulties as to case management at a later stage, there are mechanisms available to effectively litigate the reliance questions, without destroying the efficiency of class proceedings on other issues.” Kxxxxxxxx at 83. Also, as stated in Axxxxxxxx, there are several other avenues available to resolve reliance issues without sacrificing class certification (mini-hearings and questionnaires to name a few). Furthermore, there is case law, as Plaintiff argues (in Plaintiffs Reply Brief in Support of Her Motion for Class Certi...
Predominance. Class Representative has shown “questions of law or
Predominance. The predominance inquiry “tests whether [a] proposed class[] [is] sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 X.0x 000, 000-00 (0x Xxx. 2008) (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623). The predominance test requires a more rigorous analysis than Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality prong. Xxxxxxxx, 667 F.3d at 297. There is a “key” distinction between certification for settlement purposes and certification for litigation: when taking a proposed settlement into consideration, individual issues which are normally present in litigation usually become irrelevant, allowing the common issues to predominate. Id. at 304 & n.29. Here, as it pertains to the settlement of this matter only, the questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class predominate over any questions affecting individual members of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, this Court finds the predominance requirement is satisfied for purposes of the Settlement.
Predominance. (a) hegemony (b) weakness (c) reign (d) sovereignty
