Pennsylvania Code › Title 231 - RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE › Part I - GENERAL › Chapter 1700 - CLASS ACTIONS › Appendix A - ANALYSIS OF THE RULES › Rule 1702 - Prerequisites to a Class Action

Current through Register Vol. 54, No. 28, July 13, 2024
The prerequisites of present Rule 2230 are numerosity of
					 parties, impracticability of joining all as parties and adequate representation
					 of the interests of all. To these prerequisites Rule 1702 adds others, namely,
					 that there are questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims or
					 defenses are typical and the class action provides a fair and efficient method
					 of adjudication of the controversy.
However, the rule deliberately declines to adopt that part
					 of Federal Rule 23 which requires that, in actions based on common questions of
					 law and fact, a class action be "
superior
to other available
					 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy". The
					 Federal rule lists the matters pertinent to a finding of superiority.
Rule 1702(5) provides that, if the other criteria are met,
					 a class action need provide only a "fair and efficient" method for adjudication
					 of the controversy, Rule 1708,
infra
, lists the criteria which
					 the court will consider to determine if the action meets this standard.
The rule further varies from the Federal rule in making
					 this standard applicable to all class actions. The Federal rule applies its
					 "superiority" standard only to actions based on common questions of law and
					 fact. It may be that the criteria in Rule 1708 will, as a practical matter,
					 make the class action "superior" to other forms of action. If so, so much the
					 better from the point of view of good judicial administration. However, such
					 "superiority" is not required.
"Superior" is a comparative term. A "fair and efficient"
					 standard avoids questions of whether "better" alternatives exist or conversely
					 whether a class action will be "inferior" to other alternatives. The court may
					 weigh the need for class action relief objectively, without the need to search
					 for other possible "superior" judicial remedies, which will exclude the class
					 action. For example, if a class action is a fair and efficient form of action,
					 the court should not reject it because it believes a "test case" would be a
					 "superior" technique. Cf.
Katz v. Carte Blanche
, 496 F.2d 747
					 (C.A.3d 1974), cert. denied 419 U. S. 885, 95 S. Ct. 152, 42 L. Ed.2d 125
					 (1975).
However, where a specific statutory remedy is provided for
					 the processing of claims, numerosity of claims will not justify a class action.
					 See
Lilian v. Commonwealth
, 467 Pa. 15, 354 A.2d 250 (1976).
					 This follows the classic principle that a statutory form of relief must be
					 followed exclusively.
It is significant that the opinion in
Klemow
,
supra
, left open the question of
					 "superiority" stating in footnote 14 "We need not here decide whether there
					 are, in certain cases, additional criteria which one who attempts to bring a
					 class action must meet, e.g., as required under the federal practice, that the
					 class action is superior to other available methods for handling the
					 controversy..." Rule 1702 will decide this open question.
Rules 1701 and 1702 make clear that "parties" are defined
					 to mean the named parties to the action who represent the class. The court must
					 find that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
					 interests of the class.