Form 5P:1 Motion for Class Certification

{CAPTION - FORM 1B:1}

{PARTY}'S MEMORANDUM IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

{Party} asks the court to certify the action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

A. Introduction

1. Plaintiff is {name}; defendant is {name}.

2. Plaintiff sued defendant for {state basis of suit}.

3. {Party} files this motion for class certification as soon as practicable after the commencement of the action. {Elaborate.}

B. Argument

4. A motion for class certification must assert that the four requirements of Rule 23(a) are met and that the class meets at least one of the three categories of Rule 23(b). Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613-14, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2245 (1997). {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Grounds," ch. 5-P, §2.4, p. 325.}

5. One or more members of a class may {sue/be sued} as representative parties on behalf of the class if all the following requirements are met: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 828 n.6, 119 S. Ct. 2295, 2306 n.6 (1999); Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., 186 F.3d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1999). {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "FRCP 23(a) requirements," ch. 5-P, §2.4.1, p. 325.}

6. The court should grant {party}'s motion for class certification for the following reasons:

a. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1); Pederson v. La. State Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 868-69 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2000). {Explain, e.g., joining all class members would be extremely difficult or inconvenient, and demonstrate a reasonable estimate or evidence of the number of class members.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Numerosity," ch. 5-P, §2.4.1(1), p. 325.}

b. There are questions of law or fact common to the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The issues of {identify all common issues of law or fact} will affect {all/substantially all} of the class members. Mullen, 186 F.3d at 625; see Caridad v. Metro N. Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 291-93 (2d Cir. 1999). {Explain, e.g., on the whole, the class members' characteristics are sufficiently similar.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Commonality," ch. 5-P, §2.4.1(2), p. 325.}

c. The {claims/defenses} of {name of proposed class representative} are typical of the {claims/defenses} of all the class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3); Mullen, 186 F.3d at 625. {Name of proposed class representative} has the same interests and has generally suffered the same type of injury as the rest of the class. Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 156, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 2370 (1982); Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 868-69 (9th Cir. 2001). {Explain, e.g., there is a sufficient relationship between the injury to the plaintiff and the conduct affecting the class.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Typicality," ch. 5-P, §2.4.1(3), p. 325.}

d. {Name of proposed class representative} will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Mullen, 186 F.3d at 625-26. Specifically, {name of proposed class representative} (1) is a member of the class, (2) has the same interests as, and no conflicts with, the class members, (3) suffered the same injury as the class members, and (4) has competent counsel. SeeAmchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 625-26 & n.20, 117 S. Ct. at 2250-51 & n.20; Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 403, 95 S. Ct. 553, 559 (1975); Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 957-59 (9th Cir. 2003). {Elaborate.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "Adequacy of representation," ch. 5-P, §2.4.1(4), p. 325.}

{CHOOSE APPROPRIATE PARAGRAPHS 7-9}

7. The court should certify the class because prosecuting separate actions {by/against} the individual class members would create a risk of

{CHOOSE APPROPRIATE REASON}

(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications for individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for {adverse party}. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A); see Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 614, 117 S. Ct. at 2245. {Elaborate.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "FRCP 23(b)(1) class action," ch. 5-P, §2.4.2(1)(a), p. 326.}

(B) adjudications for the individual class members that would either (1) be dispositive of the interests of the other members who are not parties to the adjudications or (2) substantially impair or impede the other members' ability to protect their interests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B); In re Integra Realty Res., Inc., 354 F.3d 1246, 1263-64 & n.6 (10th Cir. 2004); see Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 614, 117 S. Ct. at 2245. {Explain, e.g., allowing adjudication of individual claims will compromise claims of absent class members, there is evidence of defendant's likely insolvency.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "FRCP 23(b)(1) class action," ch. 5-P, §2.4.2(1)(b), p. 326.}

8. The court should certify the class because {adverse party} has {acted/refused to act} on grounds generally applicable to all proposed class members, so that final {injunctive relief/declaratory relief} is appropriate for the class as a whole. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2); Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 58, 63-64 (3d Cir. 1994); see Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 614, 117 S. Ct. at 2245. {Explain, e.g., defendant has adopted a pattern of activity that is the same for all class members.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "FRCP 23(b)(2) class action," ch. 5-P, §2.4.2(2), p. 326.}

9. The court should certify the class because the common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and the class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516, 527 (3d Cir. 2004); seeAmchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 615, 117 S. Ct. at 2245-46. Specifically,

{CHOOSE APPROPRIATE GROUNDS}

(A) the class members are not interested in individually controlling the {prosecution/defense} of separate actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A); In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d at 533-34 & n.16; seeAmchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 615-16, 117 S. Ct. at 2246. {Elaborate.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "FRCP 23(b)(3) class action," ch. 5-P, §2.4.2(3), p. 327.}

(B) extensive litigation concerning the controversy has already begun {by/against} the members of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(B); In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d at 533-34 & n.16; see Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 615-16, 117 S. Ct. at 2246. {Elaborate.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "FRCP 23(b)(3) class action," ch. 5-P, §2.4.2(3), p. 327.}

(C) concentrating the litigation of the claims in {identify particular forum} is desirable for members of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(C); In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d at 533-34 & n.16; see Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 615-16, 117 S. Ct. at 2246. {Elaborate.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "FRCP 23(b)(3) class action," ch. 5-P, §2.4.2(3), p. 327.}

(D) management of the class action will not be difficult. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D); In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d at 533-34 & n.16; see Amchem Prods., 521 U.S. at 615-16, 117 S. Ct. at 2246. {Elaborate.} {See O'Connor's Federal Rules, "FRCP 23(b)(3) class action," ch. 5-P, §2.4.2(3), p. 327.}

C. Conclusion

10. {Briefly summarize the motion.} For these reasons, {party} asks the court to grant {his/her/its} motion for class certification.