Opinion ID: 1371302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: lack of proper motion

Text: (1) Defendant contends the court was without jurisdiction to certify the class suit as appropriate because the only motion before the court was limited to determining that the class was not appropriate. This argument lacks substance. This court has urged trial courts to be procedurally innovative, encouraging them to incorporate procedures from outside sources in determining whether to allow the maintenance of a particular class suit. More specifically, we have directed them to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [3] which provides: As soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained. (Federal Rules Civ. Proc., rule 23(c)(1).) This determination may be made on motion of either plaintiff or defendant  or on the court's own motion. (Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1785, p. 128.) The procedure followed by the trial court here is identical to that approved in Johnson v. City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana (E.D.La. 1970) 50 F.R.D. 295, 298. (2) Nor is there merit to defendant's claim a court may not on its own motion order notice to class members. Notice is mandatory under the federal rules (rule 23(c)(2)) and should be ordered as soon as possible after the court determines the class action appropriate. (Wright & Miller, supra, § 1788, p. 163.) Because of the constitutional importance of notifying absent class members  who are suddenly before the court  such notice should not be left to the whim of litigants. The order here did not determine the form of notice, but were the class action to be upheld, the appropriate form could be determined in further trial court proceedings.