Opinion ID: 1184485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: R.C.P. 23(a), as amended, provides:

Text: Rule 23(a). Class actions  Representation.  In actions wherein persons constituting a class are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, such of them, one or more, as will fairly insure the adequate representation of all may, on behalf of all, sue or be sued, when the character of the right sought to be enforced for or against the class is (1) joint, or common, or secondary in the sense that the owner of a primary right refuses to enforce that right and a member of the class thereby becomes entitled to enforce it; (2) several, and the object of the action is the adjudication of claims which do or may affect specific property involved in the action; or (3) several, and there is a common question of law or fact affecting the several rights and a common relief is sought. We agree with the assertion of Upper Valley that I.R.C.P. 23(a) is identical to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3) as that rule existed prior to the amendments of 1966. Most commentators believe that the flaws of the pre-1966 federal rule far outweighed its merits. It is arguable that the pre-1966 federal rule had only a limited utility. See 3B Moore's Federal Practice, § 23.10(3); Simeone, J.J., Procedural Problems of Class Suits, 60 Mich.L.Rev. 905 (1962); Kalven & Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Action Suit, 8 U. Chi.L.Rev. 684 (1941); Note, Federal Class Action: A Suggested Revision of Rule 23, 46 Col.L.Rev. 818 (1946); Advisory Committee Note to 1966 Amendment, 39 F.R.D. 98 (1966). We also agree with the assertion of Upper Valley that under almost unanimous authority the pre-1966 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) bound only those persons who voluntarily joined the action. See Moore's Federal Practice, supra, § 23.11[3], 23.30. Nevertheless we are not compelled to follow the cases thus urged by Upper Valley since other provisions of our rules, specifically I.R.C.P. 23(d), differ substantially from the pre-1966 Federal Rules. I.R.C.P. 23(d) provides: Rule 23(d). Orders to insure adequate representation.  The court at any stage of an action under subdivisions (subdivision) (a) of this rule may impose such terms as shall fairly and adequately protect the interests of the persons on whose behalf the action is brought or defended. It may order that notice be given, in such manner as it may direct, of the pendency of the action, of a proposed settlement, of entry of judgment or of any other proceedings in the action, including notice to come in and present claims and defenses. When, notwithstanding such orders, the representation appears to the court inadequate fairly to protect the interests of absent parties, the court may, at any time prior to judgment, order an amendment of the pleadings, eliminating therefrom all reference to representation of the absent parties, and the court may order the entry of judgment in such form as to affect only the parties to the action and those adequately represented. As noted by the commentators, supra, there was considerable dissatisfaction with the pre-1966 federal rule and it was perhaps a part of that dissatisfaction that prompted Idaho's adoption of I.R.C.P. 23(d). It is our strong belief that in adopting I.R.C.P. 23(d) Idaho accepted the invitation tendered by the United States Supreme Court in Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 61 S.Ct. 115, 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940); Nor do we find it necessary for the decision of this case to say that, when the only circumstance defining the class is that the determination of the rights of its members turns upon a single issue of fact or law, a state could not constitutionally adopt a procedure whereby some of the members of the class could stand in judgment for all, provided that the procedure were so devised and applied as to insure that those present are of the same class as those absent and that the litigation is so conducted as to insure the full and fair consideration of the common issue. Compare New England Divisions Case, 261 U.S. 184, 197, 43 S.Ct. 270, 275, 67 L.Ed. 605; Taggart v. Bremner, 7 Cir., 236 F. 544. 311 U.S. at 43, 61 S.Ct. at 119. We hold that I.R.C.P. 23(d) establishes a procedure whereby the trial court can and should present absentees with notice that unless they expressly opt out of the litigation they will be bound by the action of those who actively participate. Such notice must be predicated on a finding that those bringing the litigation will adequately represent the interests of the absentees. Our interpretation is in harmony with the 1966 amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23. See 3B Moore's Federal Practice, supra, § 23.02-1, pp. 23-71. There are important policy reasons which militate in favor of our interpretation of I.R.C.P. 23. The construction we adopt today eliminates the possibility of a plethora of actions dealing with the same basic issues which would unreasonably burden plaintiffs, defendants, and the judicial process. See Weeks v. Bareco Oil Co., 125 F.2d 84, 94 (7th Cir.1941). In addition, without the procedure we approve today separate actions would be economically unfeasible and recovery extremely unlikely in cases where each plaintiff has only a small claim. The defendant therefore would be allowed to profit by his own wrong. See Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695, 63 Cal. Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732 (1967). Reading I.R.C.P. 23(a)(3) and I.R.C.P. 23(d) in pari materia and construing them liberally under I.R.C.P. 1, we conclude they command broad use of class actions whenever the interests of absentees can be adequately represented. We specifically hold that in this action brought under I.R.C.P. 23(a)(3) all members of the class will be considered parties to the action unless they expressly notify the court that they wish to be excluded from the action. Under I.R.C.P. 23(d) the district court shall provide such notice to this effect to all those who were Upper Valley subscribers any time during the period of December 15, 1970 through July 26, 1971. Upper Valley contends that even if we find the case at bar to be a good class action, there are serious problems concerning Bush's ability to represent the class. The following are appropriate criteria to evaluate representation: (1) Do the interests of the representative party coincide with those of the class? (2) Can the representative party and his attorney be expected to prosecute the action vigorously? Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472, 494 (E.D.N.Y. 1968) rev'd on other grounds, 438 F.2d 825 (2d Cir.1971). See also 3B Moore's Federal Practice, supra, § 23.07 [1], pp. 23-351. We find no indication in the record that such standards have not been met. The interests of all subscribers coincide in that they were all overcharged for the cable television service at the rate of $1 per month. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Bush has not prosecuted this action vigorously and competently. On remand Plaintiff Bush will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees from the sum that the subscribers recover from Upper Valley. Accordingly, each subscriber should be ordered to contribute a reasonable portion of his recovery toward attorney fees for Bush. It is only fitting that those who will benefit from the litigation also contribute proportionately to the expenses incurred in pursuit. See 3B Moore's Federal Practice, supra, § 23.91. The judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. No costs allowed. DONALDSON, C.J., and McQUADE, McFADDEN and BAKES, JJ., concur.