Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

8 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES 

Opinion of the Court 

We granted certiorari.  562 U. S. ___ (2010). 

II 
The  class  action  is  “an  exception  to  the  usual  rule  that
litigation  is  conducted  by  and  on  behalf  of  the  individual 
named parties only.”  Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 
700–701 (1979).  In order to justify a departure from that 
rule, “a class representative must be part of the class and
‘possess  the  same  interest  and  suffer  the  same  injury’  as 
the  class  members.”    East  Tex.  Motor  Freight  System, 
Inc.  v.  Rodriguez,  431  U. S.  395,  403  (1977)  (quoting 
Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 
208,  216  (1974)).  Rule  23(a)  ensures  that  the  named 
plaintiffs  are  appropriate  representatives  of  the  class 
whose  claims  they  wish  to  litigate.    The  Rule’s  four 
requirements—numerosity,  commonality,  typicality,  and
adequate  representation—“effectively 
‘limit  the  class 
claims  to  those  fairly  encompassed  by  the  named  plain-
tiff ’s  claims.’ ”    General  Telephone  Co.  of  Southwest  v. 
Falcon,  457  U. S.  147,  156  (1982)  (quoting  General  Tele-
phone  Co.  of  Northwest  v.  EEOC,  446  U. S.  318,  330 
(1980)). 

A 
The crux of this case is commonality—the rule requiring
a plaintiff to show that “there are questions of law or fact 
common  to  the  class.”  Rule  23(a)(2).5    That  language  is 

—————— 

5 We  have  previously  stated  in  this  context  that  “[t]he  commonality
and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge.  Both serve as 
guideposts for determining whether under the particular circumstances 
maintenance  of  a  class  action  is  economical  and  whether  the  named 
plaintiff’s claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the inter-
ests  of  the  class  members  will  be  fairly  and  adequately  protected  in 
their  absence.  Those  requirements  therefore  also  tend  to  merge  with 
the  adequacy-of-representation  requirement,  although  the 
latter 
requirement also raises concerns about the competency of class counsel 
and  conflicts  of  interest.”  General  Telephone  Co.  of  Southwest  v.  Fal-