Opinion ID: 2834098
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Certification Requirements

Text: All class actions must satisfy four prerequisites: (1) numerosity—the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) commonality—there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) typicality—the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) adequacy of representation—the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(a); see also Sw. Ref. Co. v. Bernal , 22 S.W.3d 425, 435 (Tex. 2000). In addition, a class action must satisfy at least one of the requirements in Rule 42(b). Here Daccach argues the class action satisfies Rule 42(b)(3), [5] which requires that “questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members” and that class treatment be “superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” Rule 42 contains a list of nonexhaustive factors to aid a court in determining if (b)(3) certification is appropriate: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(b)(3). In Bernal , we explained that to properly apply the certification prerequisites, a trial court must perform a “rigorous analysis.” 22 S.W.3d at 435. And to correctly determine these certification issues, a certifying court must “understand the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law.” Id. This understanding requires a choice of law analysis at the outset anytime there is an issue of which of several jurisdictions’ laws should govern a case. Compaq Computer Corp. v. Lapray , 135 S.W.3d 657, 672 (Tex. 2004) (“[Variations in the laws of multiple jurisdictions] ‘may swamp any common issues and defeat predominance.’” (quoting Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co. , 84 S.W.3d 734, 741 (5th Cir. 1996))). The threshold question, therefore, is whether the trial court conducted a proper choice of law analysis and correctly decided that Texas law governs this class suit. Compaq , 135 S.W.3d at 741.