Opinion ID: 1722395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The representatives must share common issues and interests with the absent class members.

Text: This first adequacy of representation requirement is fulfilled by representatives who have an interest in a claim that is typical of the remaining class claims. [5] Under GCR 1963, 208.1(3), a claim is typical when it is based on a common question of law or fact    and a common relief is sought. The claims need not be identical in such matters as the individual amount of damages, Foster v Detroit, 254 F Supp 655, 667-669 (ED Mich, 1966), aff'd 405 F2d 138 (CA 6, 1968); Oppenheimer v F J Young & Co, 144 F2d 387, 390 (CA 2, 1944), so long as common issues predominate and a judicial economy will be realized through the class action procedure. Partain v First National Bank of Montgomery, 59 FRD 56 (MD Ala, 1973). The representative plaintiffs in the instant litigation possessed claims typical of the class of those persons required to pay excess building permit fees under the illegal amendments to the St. Clair Shores Building Code. Each class claim raises a common issue concerning the legality of the building permit fees and each claim can be satisfied by a monetary refund. After the merits are resolved the court should be able to set up a simple procedure for determining the eligibility and individual amount of relief due each class member. See, e.g., Foster v Detroit, supra .