Pennsylvania Code › Title 231 - RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE › Part I - GENERAL › Chapter 1700 - CLASS ACTIONS › Appendix A - ANALYSIS OF THE RULES › Rule 1708 - Criteria for Certification of Class Actions

Current through Register Vol. 54, No. 28, July 13, 2024
Rule 1708 sets forth the criteria to be considered by the
					 court in determining whether the class action is a fair and efficient method
					 for adjudication of the controversy.
The Rule first sets out in subdivision (a) the criteria to
					 be applied where only monetary recovery is sought. It then sets out in
					 subdivision (b) the criteria to be applied where only equitable or declaratory
					 relief is sought. Finally, in subdivision (c) it sets out the criteria to be
					 applied when both monetary recovery and equitable relief are sought.
The criteria in subdivisions (1) to (5) of subdivision (a)
					 are taken almost verbatim from Federal Rule 23(b)(1), (2) and (3), except that
					 the requirement of "superiority" in class actions based on common questions of
					 law or fact is omitted.
Two additional criteria are provided in subdivisions (6)
					 and (7) of subdivision (a) which are not set forth in the Federal rule.
The first additional criterion permits the court to
					 consider whether the complexity of the issues and the expenses of litigating
					 separate claims of individual class members are of such magnitude as to exclude
					 separate action by individual class members. This follows the Federal case
					 law.
The second additional criterion permits the court to
					 consider whether the damages which may be recovered by individual class members
					 will be so small in relation to the expense and effort of administering the
					 action as not to justify a class action, with its attendant burdens on the
					 judicial system and judicial manpower.
The Uniform Class Action Act in Section 3(a) uses somewhat
					 similar criteria requiring the court to consider whether in view of the
					 complexities of the issues and the expenses of the litigation the claims of the
					 individual class members are insufficient to afford significant relief to the
					 members of the class. This criterion points up a policy question on which
					 opinion between plaintiffs and defendants is sharply divided.
In many consumer class actions the individual amounts may
					 be very small, but the aggregate may be large and maintenance of the class
					 action might have a deterrent effect on future violations by the defendant.
					 Also, if the defendant's conduct is egregious, compelling refunds, even of
					 inconsequential amounts, may be desirable from a public policy point of view.
					 Perhaps the remedy may be legislative rather than procedural.
When the action is brought for monetary recovery only, the
					 court is to consider all seven of these criteria.
If, however, the action is brought for equitable or
					 declaratory relief only, criteria (6) and (7) are obviously inapplicable. In
					 that case, subdivision (b) directs the court to consider criteria (1) to (5)
					 only plus an additional criterion which is inapplicable to monetary relief,
					 namely, whether the conduct of the opposing party has been such as to make
					 equitable or declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class.
Finally, if both monetary recovery and equitable or
					 declaratory relief are sought, the court is to consider criteria (1) to (7) of
					 subdivision (a) and also the special criterion of subdivision
					 (b).