Opinion ID: 2205488
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Typicality Requirement Has Been Met

Text: ¶ 36 The question of typicality ... is closely related to the preceding question of commonality. A named plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and [is] based on the same legal theory. Ditty, 182 F.R.D. at 642 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, minor factual variations will not defeat the formation of the class. Id. ¶ 37 In the current case, the district court verified that every class has a representative with the same claims and legal theories as the other class members. Every other argument the Car Dealers make against typicality has been addressed in our discussion of commonality above. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding typicality.