Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

22 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES 

Opinion of the Court 

sought must perforce affect the entire class at once, as in a
(b)(2)  class.  For  that  reason  these  are  also  mandatory 
classes:  The  Rule  provides  no  opportunity  for  (b)(1)  or 
(b)(2)  class  members  to  opt  out,  and  does  not  even  oblige
the District Court to afford them notice of the action.  Rule 
23(b)(3), by contrast, is an “adventuresome innovation”  of 
the  1966  amendments,  Amchem,  521  U. S.,  at  614  (inter-
nal  quotation  marks  omitted),  framed  for  situations  “in 
which ‘class-action treatment is not as clearly called for’,” 
id.,  at  615  (quoting  Advisory  Committee’s  Notes,  28
U. S. C.  App.,  p.  697  (1994  ed.)).    It  allows  class  certifica-
tion in a much wider set of circumstances but with greater
procedural protections.  Its only prerequisites are that “the 
questions  of  law  or  fact  common  to  class  members  pre-
dominate  over  any  questions  affecting  only  individual
members,  and  that  a  class  action  is  superior  to  other
available  methods  for  fairly  and  efficiently  adjudicating 
the  controversy.”  Rule  23(b)(3).    And  unlike  (b)(1)  and
(b)(2)  classes,  the  (b)(3)  class  is  not  mandatory;  class 
members  are  entitled  to  receive  “the  best  notice  that  is 
practicable  under  the  circumstances”  and  to  withdraw
from the class at their option.  See Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

Given  that  structure,  we  think  it  clear  that  individ-
ualized  monetary  claims  belong  in  Rule  23(b)(3).    The 
(b)(3)  class— 
procedural  protections  attending 
predominance,  superiority,  mandatory  notice,  and  the
right  to  opt  out—are  missing  from  (b)(2)  not  because  the 
Rule considers them unnecessary, but because it considers
them unnecessary to a (b)(2) class.  When a class seeks an 
indivisible  injunction  benefitting  all  its  members  at  once, 
there is no reason to undertake a case-specific inquiry into 

the 

—————— 

individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their
ability to protect their interests,” Rule 23(b)(1)(B), such as in “ ‘limited
fund’ cases, . . . in which numerous persons make claims against a fund 
insufficient to satisfy all claims,” Amchem, supra, at 614.