Talk:Class action/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism

The criticism against class action section has clearly degenerated into a back and forth between pro and con factions. There's little actual information there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.195.60 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda

Just happened across this phrase: 'This federal law was passed, in part, to “assure fair and prompt recoveries of legitimate claims.” Section 2(b)(1).'

Don't know enough about it to edit the main page, but this phrase looks like propaganda. Regardless of whether the bill contains this phrase, the primary agenda of the bill's supporters was focused around the defendants in class-action suits -- not the class of little guys seeking redress.

Appreciate it if someone who knew more about it would confirm and level if slanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.99.232 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally Off The Road! ( NO EXPERT TALK for WIKIPEDIA [This Internet ENDEAVOR is for COMMON PEOPLE])

The whole article needs a rewrite in easy to understand language.

Jan Girke 20:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

International law

I have expanded the article to introduce a more global perspective, by adding brief discussions of the law of various countries. Further information/resources would be a good project for Wiki Law project, and I will bring it up there.jgwlaw 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am just trying to get my head around what a "class action" actually is and how they might work. As far as I can see they are quite like group litigation orders, though they are fairly rare in England and Wales, but I'm not sure if they are exactly the same. A GLO is a collection of claims rather than a single claim - am I right in thinking that a "class action" is a single action? If so, it sounds a bit more like a representative claim - but again I'm not really sure. What I am trying to get my head around, is what are the distinctive features of a class action as against any other claim. Perhaps you could clarify the law a bit on this in the US, then I can have a go at understanding what is being said here and say what happens in England and Wales. Francis Davey 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a single class, usually with multiple plaintiffs, with a common claim.

What was written in the article on the U.S. is pretty accurate, although it needs a little cleanup:

1. A representative class files suit. 2. The plaintiff brings a motion to have the class certified (an assessment of the factors below) 3. The court will examine the class attributes and the ability of the firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs,the court may, as due process requires, have notices sent direct notice, published, or broadcast to the public, in any place where the class members can be found constructive notice.

4. THe notice gives the class members the opportunity to opt out of the class (enabling an individual to file his own case) 5. In federal civil procedure law, which has generally been accepted by most states, the class action must have certain definite characteristics:

(1) the class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical,

(2) there must be legal or factual claims in common

(3) the claims or defences must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants, and

(4) the representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class.

Feel free to email me if you want more infomation. I can give you a rundown on class actions.jgwlaw 04:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Links section

http://www.law.uh.edu/peopleslawyer/classaction.html and http://www.legal-actions.com/ don't seem Wikipedia-appropriate. The latter is an advertising site, the former is a list of links that duplicates what is on Wikipedia plus has some advertising sites. Any objection to pulling those links from the article? -- TedFrank 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose the inclusion of this paper on European expansion of class action law. The paper is by the Institute for Legal Reform. I don't wish to POV-push, however; if one is aware of other work in the area, that should be included, too. -- TedFrank 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

France section

The French section is not up to date. I propose the following revision:

Under French law, an association can represent the collective interests of consumers; however, each claimant must be 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 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 must comprise at least two individuals) for goods purchased under a standard contract. After such an action is brought, the association would 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 have opted-in to the proceedings, with damages limited to 2000 Euros; contingent fees for attorneys would be barred.[1] The president of the French Supreme Court recently declared that "class actions are inescapable." (.pdf file) Nevertheless, the bill was withdrawn in January 2007 at the request of Minister of Health Xavier Bertrand.[2]

Any objections? -- TedFrank 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I've made the change. -- TedFrank 04:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My 7/11/07 edits

Mostly my edits are improvements to style, or to tone done certain claims that are not supported. For example, I changed some instances of "most" to "frequently." "Most" is a hard statistical claim that requires a citation.

Herrdoctor 03:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

retitling?

Might I suggest the article be re-titled to "Class Action Lawsuits" instead of Class action? I just think it will create less confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.103.100 (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: clearly the focus of this article is on class actions in America. Perhaps the title should reflect this, or the article could be separated into a couple of pages. It seems slightly odd as it is now; the box on the left-hand side is titled 'Civil procedure of America' or something like that, yet the article discusses class actions of other countries. As it is at the moment, it seems to suggest that class actions are primarily an American phenomenon!

Or perhaps a heading could be added above the section on American class actions. --snowy150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.103.235.176 (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

partie civile

I wonder how/whether this relates to partie civile. – Kaihsu (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Class Action Fraud

In opposition to the class actions, I direct you to the following site. It shows attorneys and the courts in Mississippi and Louisiana manufacturing fraudulent claims. Additionally, it shows the hardship of the actual injured persons used for settlements. The source is actual documents from the Hinds County Court, Jackson, Mississippi.http://www.mftms13.wordpress.com

                                                         Robert Marie
                                                              (74.180.20.23 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)).

Criticism section

Will the apologists for the lawyers please stay out of the criticism section. This section is terribly written. There are some very strong compelling complaints many in society have against class action lawsuits.

I made some changes to this section. These changes could have been more artfully written as they were done rather quickly, but they certainly improved the argument. This section was so badly done previously it was very easy to sharpen the argument. Naturally one of the apologists for the lawyers simply reverted with no comment. Apparently the apologists for the lawyers dont want a solid criticism to see the light.

If "lawyers get millions of dollars and the class member gets perhaps a dollar off coupon" isn't NPOV, then I don't know what is. And please sign your comments; it's hard to take anything you write seriously if you can't follow the simple suggestions on your user talk page. b0at 23:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"In these cases, the lawyers get millions of dollars and the class member gets perhaps a dollar off coupon. For example, Blockbusters was sued and everyone recieved a silly coupon and probably had to pay more for the videos to cover the legal expense, and the lawyers recieved millions of dollars." This was the full quote which used an example where the lawyers got millions of dollars and the class members got a dollar off coupon or something similar. The fed ex case was also mentioned. THere are numerous other cases. I just read the NPOV section. Your actions are against the rules. The criticism section must be presented as clearly, forcefully and soundly as possible. Your efforts at weakening the argument are against the rules. You have your own section to present your argument. It is against the rules for you to weaken the other side's argument. LegalEagle1798 03:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I used a rhetorical device in the following which you deleted which is probably against the rules. I Would like apologist's response before I fix it up and post it to the article.

"The court must approve any settlement and class members and their attorneys have the right to argue against a settlement as being too low, which explains why courts approved the fedex settlement and the blockbusters settlement and the ADM settlement and all the other silly settlements where the lawyers made millions and the class members basically recieved nothing. The ADM case is especially interesting because the lawyers sued the company on behalf of the shareholders which tanked the stock. The shareholders were hurt and the lawyers made millions and why did the court approve this settlement?" LegalEagle1798 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV problems

As others have noted, the "==Pros and cons of class actions==" section is a bit slanted. The con section needs to be more fully fleshed out; several possible sources of substantive critiques can be found in the references section. THF 01:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag as there's been no discussion on the topic for over two years, and the sections seem to fairly present the advantages (not having to litigate the same issue repeatedly, dealing with situations where the harm to any one person is minor but worth suing over for the class as a whole) and the criticisms (large attorney fees compared to small amounts or coupons for the class members, and binding everyone in the class when many people won't ever see the notice). If there are additional sourced criticism, these can, of course, be added. PaulGS (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just figured this out

I just read Stephen Yeazell's book on the history of group litigation at a law library. I'll have to add cites and insert the following summary (revised) when I have the time.

It turns out that group litigation was very common in medieval England at common law because feudal English society was organized into groups as a matter of convenience and individual rights were only dimly understood. In a society with poor transportation, slow communications and short lifespans, it was easier for the king or one of his lords to simply say to a village, you are subject to these duties, sort it out amongst yourselves, and if you don't do it we'll punish ALL of you or pick six of you at random and punish them. In modern terms we would say that the king was imposing joint and several liability upon groups by fiat. So under these conditions it was taken for granted at common law that an entire village, or guild, or parish could sue or be sued. They were not unincorporated associations in the modern sense; they were just groups. Nowhere among bench or bar was there any concern over whether the plaintiff was a proper representative as there is today, because to question the existence of groups as a fundamental building block of medieval society would have been professional suicide.

Group litigation was completely dead in England after 1850 due to rise of corporations and the distinction developed between incorporated and unincorporated associations. The new municipal corporations and joint-stock companies were eager to cut off and limit the rights of anyone who wasn't part of them. Also, due to a very confused period of English legal history involving the Star Chamber, the law courts lost their power to hear group litigation and it became concentrated in Chancery. Eventually fragments of the old Chancery group litigation decisions made their way into U.S. books like Story's Equity Jurisprudence. Yeazell points out that Story generally understood that group litigation existed in some old medieval cases but was unable to articulate a coherent theory underlying group litigation because Story, an individualistic American, simply could not understand the group-driven society in which those cases had originated; they were completely out of his frame of reference. Christopher Columbus Langdell also had the same issue as Story.

Yeazell points out that a major shift from group litigation to late 20th-century class action litigation is the switch from common group identity to common interest. This is often seen in modern consumer litigation where the only thing the plaintiffs have in common is that they bought and used the same product made by the defendant.

Finally, the other interesting point made by Yeazell is why Rule 23 was deliberately switched around in 1966. It turns out the Advisory Committee drafters were deliberately drafting with full awareness of two major events: a 1947 article proposing that shareholder class actions might be an effective tool for enforcing honest corporate governance, and the consumer, environmental, and civil rights movements of 1960s. By making it easy for federal courts to certify opt-out classes, the objective was to attract more private attorneys general to enforce all these different types of rights. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

the historical distinction between "actions" at law and "suits" in equity is no longer recognized.

Misleading to say the least. If the procedures have been merged and there is no necessity to appear specially anymore, the two jurisdictions of 'at law' and Equity are still completely separate and depending on how you enter the court, the court will bind you. "A court of law adjudicates cases based on legal, not equitable, principles and rights and can grant only legal remedies to enforce legal rights and to redress the violation of legal rights. A court exercising equitable jurisdiction adjudicates cases based on equitable and legal causes of action and principles and recognizes both legal and equitable rights but may, as needed to enforce equitable rights, use either remedies which are exclusively available in equity, or remedies that are available to law courts to enforce legal rights" G. Thomas HUTCHENS, Appellant,v.MAXICENTERS, U.S.A., Appellee.No. 87-1515.District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.April 21, 1988.On Motion for Rehearing April 13, 1989. I also concur with the first talk post, the whole article is propaganda and would be best just entirely trashed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.49.31 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're quoting a garbage holding out of a Florida court. Florida courts get no respect from other states because the state's law schools and bar exam are a joke. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Class actions in australia

i am going to add a section specific to australian law - i agree with earlier comments that this article needs to be properly internationalised - there is also a need for general copy editing for tone and style that i will have a go at as well Shaztastic (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitely agree with all of this. I'm wondering if "Class Actions in the United States" is really a separate article, considering how different they are in the US compared with elsewhere. To my knowledge, no other country--even common law jurisdictions like Australia--allows representative actions to the degree that the US does. In the US, class actions form an entire practice area, and there are law firms dedicated to nothing other than class action work. Can someone with more international law background (or at least background in another common law country's law) comment on if they think that's different enough from how class actions work elsewhere to merit separate treatment? Agtx (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a larger problem---a lot of poorly trained lawyers in other countries have been adding bad edits to the article because they are confusing what is actually known as "collective litigation" with the class action. (A lot of countries allow people to study law too young and the result is just terrible; law requires graduate/professional training after reaching full intellectual maturity.) If you search on "collective litigation," it's clear that collective litigation is the correct term used to describe equivalent actions in other countries. This article should be limited to class actions in the strict U.S. sense (broad classes that can be brought by any representative plaintiff against any representative defendant where the burden is on class members to opt-out) and most of the international information should be transferred to a new article on collective litigation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)