Pennsylvania Code › Title 231 - RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE › Part I - GENERAL › Chapter 1700 - CLASS ACTIONS › Appendix A - ANALYSIS OF THE RULES › Rule 1701 - Definitions. Conformity

Current through Register Vol. 54, No. 28, July 13, 2024
Subdivision (a) defines "Class Action" to include any
					 action brought by or against parties as representatives of a class until the
					 court refuses to certify it as such or revokes a prior certification.
This definition follows language in
Bell v.
					 Beneficial Consumer Discount Company
, 465 Pa. 225, 348 A.2d 734
					 (1975), that "when an action is instituted by a named individual on behalf of
					 himself and a class, the members of the class are more properly characterized
					 as parties to the action. A subsequent order of a trial court allowing an
					 action to proceed as a class action is not a joinder of the parties not yet in
					 the action. The class is in the action until properly excluded."
This definition becomes important in determining the effect
					 of the commencement of a class action as tolling the statute of limitations as
					 to the members of the class other than the named representatives. It carries
					 into effect the decision of the United States Supreme Court in
American
					 Pipe and Construction Company v. State of Utah
, 414 U. S. 538, 38 L.
					 Ed.2d 713, 94 S. Ct. 756 (1974), in which the Court held that the commencement
					 of an action as a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations
					 during the interim period from commencement until refusal to certify as to all
					 putative members of the class who would have been parties if the action had
					 been certified as such.
Subdivision (b), Rule 1701, conforms the practice and
					 procedure except as otherwise specifically provided to the form of action in
					 which relief is sought, which could ordinarily be assumpsit, trespass, equity
					 or declaratory judgment. The exceptions are primarily concerned with the
					 pleadings as provided by later rules.
The rules do not deal specifically with jurisdiction over
					 non-resident members of the class. This issue becomes of importance in view of
					 recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court respecting Federal
					 jurisdiction in many types of class actions based on diversity, which must now
					 be brought in state courts.
In
Snyder v. Harris
, 394 U. S. 332, 89 S.
					 Ct. 1053, 22 L. Ed.2d 319 (1969), and
Zahn v. International Paper
					 Co.
, 414 U. S. 291, 38 L. Ed.2d 511, 94 S. Ct. 505 (1973), the Court
					 held that, in diversity cases and in other cases where statutes impose a
					 jurisdictional amount, claims of individual class members below the minimum
					 cannot be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional requirement. Each member's
					 claim must separately qualify.
In
Klemow v. Time, Incorporated
, 466 Pa.
					 189, 352 A.2d 12 (1976), certiorari denied, 429 U. S. 828, 97 S. Ct. 86, 50 L.
					 Ed.2d 91 (1976), an action nominally brought on behalf of all subscribers to
					 Time magazine, the court in footnote 15 stated that "because the jurisdiction
					 of the courts of the Commonwealth is territorially limited, the class may
					 consist only of Pennsylvania residents. The class may also include nonresidents
					 who submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the state courts."
This holding would require nonresidents in this type of
					 "national" consumer class action to intervene or to appear through an opt-in
					 procedure which is provided for by Rule 1711(b)(2).
Klemow does not definitely decide the status of
					 nonresidents where the subject matter of the action is a res or fund within
					 Pennsylvania or is an attack on corporate action of a Pennsylvania corporation
					 involving only bondholders or creditors in other jurisdictions. Nor did it
					 involve a situation where Pennsylvania has the most significant relationship to
					 all aspects of the transaction, so that Pennsylvania might assume jurisdiction
					 over non-resident members of the class in a manner parallel to long-arm
					 jurisdiction over non-resident defendants.
Jurisdiction over non-residents is clearly substantive and
					 not procedural and for this reason is not dealt with in the
					 rules.