Civil Procedure
389 F. App'x 540 (7th Cir. 2009)
Study notes for Resnik v. LaSalle Bank: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Class certification can be denied if plaintiffs fail to demonstrate commonality and adequacy of representation as required by Rule 23.
In Resnik v. LaSalle Bank, the Seventh Circuit focused on the critical requirements for class certification under Rule 23, particularly the need for commonality among class members. The plaintiffs asserted that they were harmed by similar unlawful practices regarding mortgage transactions. However, the court found that individual issues predominated over collective ones, demonstrating that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality prong. This case illustrates how courts assess the adequacy of representation, emphasizing that class representatives must adequately protect the interests of the class, which was not sufficiently shown in this instance.
Additionally, the court scrutinized whether the subclass members shared a significant common interest—ultimately concluding that individual variances in claims and injuries precluded class certification. Professors may emphasize the importance of demonstrating both commonality and adequacy when pursuing class actions and how deficiencies in either prong can lead to denial of certification, thus influencing future litigation strategy.
C.A.R.E. - Commonality, Adequacy, Representatives Evaluated.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes | In Wal-Mart, the commonality requirement was strictly interpreted, leading to a denial of class certification, similar to Resnik's failure but with larger implications for nationwide class actions. |
| Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor | In contrast to Amchem, where commonality was met due to shared concerns among all plaintiffs, Resnik struggled to show that subclass members had sufficiently related claims. |
| Munsell v. Gorman & Co. | Unlike Munsell, where the court found adequate representation, Resnik failed to demonstrate that the class representatives effectively represented the interests of all subclass members. |
Restricting class certification to instances of clear commonality and adequate representation ensures that all class members are fairly represented and that the procedural efficiencies of class actions are not undermined.
Stricter requirements for class certification can hinder access to justice for groups facing similar harms, particularly if they cannot meet the high bars set by courts.
In exams, expect to analyze the commonality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23 in class action contexts through case hypotheticals similar to Resnik v. LaSalle Bank.