Predominance and Superiority. Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied for
Predominance and Superiority. In order to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that common questions of law and fact predominate, courts look at “whether the proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va. Mortg. Lending Pracs. Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107048, at *36 (W.D. Pa. July 31, 2013); see also Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623; Xxxxxxxx, 667 F.3d at 297. In this case, the class action vehicle is best suited for the resolution of Plaintiffs’ and the other Settlement Class Members’ claims. Plaintiffs allege common issues of fact and law that predominate over any individual issues that may arise. Plaintiffs’ and Settlement Class Members’ claims are based on the same legal theory and are based on the same nucleus of facts, including leases with common language.7 7 Plaintiffs attached their leases to the complaint filed in this case. Further, a class action suit is superior to any other form of adjudication because it provides the best way of managing and resolving the claims at issue here. “The superiority requirement asks the court to balance, in terms of fairness and efficiency, the merits of a class action against those of alternative available methods of adjudication.” Eggs, 284 F.R.D. at 264 (quoting In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 316). Consideration of judicial economy and prompt resolution of claims underscore the superiority of the class action in this case. By contrast, compensation resulting from hundreds of individually litigated cases or arbitrations is highly uncertain and may not be received before lengthy, and costly, trial and appellate proceedings are complete.
Predominance and Superiority. Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied for settlement purposes as well because the common legal and alleged factual issues here predominate over individualized issues, and resolution of the common issues for Class Members in a single, coordinated proceeding is superior to individual lawsuits addressing the same legal and factual issues.
Predominance and Superiority. Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied for settlement purposes,
Predominance and Superiority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Questions of law and fact common to the Class, NJ Sub-Class and Lifetime Sub-Class members predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The damages sought by each member are such that individual prosecution would prove burdensome and expensive given the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by the AOA’s conduct. It would be virtually impossible for the members of the Class, NJ Sub-Class and Lifetime Sub-Class individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to them. Even if the members of the Class, NJ Sub-Class and Lifetime Sub-Class themselves could afford such individual litigation, it would be an unnecessary burden on the courts. Furthermore, individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and increases the delay and expense to all parties and to the court system presented by the complex legal and factual issues raised by the AOA’s conduct. By contrast, the class action device will result in substantial benefits to the litigants and the Court by allowing the Court to resolve numerous individual claims based upon a single set of proof in a unified proceeding.
Predominance and Superiority. Questions of law or fact common to Class members predominate over any questions affecting individual members. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this case because individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable, and the amount at issue for each Class member would not justify the cost of litigating individual claims. Should individual Class members be required to bring separate actions, this Court would be confronted with multiple lawsuits burdening the court system while also creating the risk of inconsistent rulings and contradictory judgments. In contrast to proceeding on a case-by-case basis, in which inconsistent results will magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system, this class action presents far fewer management difficulties while providing unitary adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties likely to be encountered in managing this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.
Predominance and Superiority. Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied because the common legal and alleged factual issues here predominate over individualized issues, and resolution of the common
Predominance and Superiority. 735 ILCS § 5/2-801 is satisfied because the common legal and alleged factual issues here predominate over individualized issues, and resolution of the common issues for the members of the Settlement Class in a single, coordinated proceeding is superior to thousands of individual lawsuits addressing the same legal and factual issues. With respect to predominance, common questions present a significant aspect of the case and can be resolved for all members of the Settlement Class in a single adjudication. In a liability determination, those common issues would predominate over any issues that are unique to individual members of the Settlement Class. Moreover, each member of the Settlement Class has claims that arise from the same or similar alleged Defendant’s practices as well as the same legal theories.
Predominance and Superiority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Questions of law and fact common to the Class and sub-class members predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The damages sought by each member are such that individual prosecution would prove burdensome and expensive given the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by the AOA’s conduct. It would be virtually impossible for the members of the Class and sub-classes individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to them. Even if the members of the Class and sub-classes themselves could afford such individual litigation, it would be an unnecessary burden on the courts. Furthermore, individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments and increases the delay and expense to all parties and to the court system presented by the complex legal and factual issues raised by the AOA’s conduct. By contrast, the class action device will result in substantial benefits to the litigants and the Court by allowing the Court to resolve numerous individual claims based upon a single set of proof in a unified proceeding.
