Opinion ID: 2788912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether Other Means of Adjudicating the Claims are Impracticable or Inefficient

Text: [¶44] The district court must also consider “whether other means of adjudicating the claims and defenses are impracticable or inefficient.” N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(F). The district court determined sub-factor (F) did not favor certification, acknowledging that 500 or more separate actions for improper sales and lending practices may be impractical, but it is not incapable of being performed or accomplished. The district court stated, “It is not readily apparent that the Court can accomplish a complete resolution of all class claims without an independent analysis of all individual contracts.” The district court also noted, “If the recovery of each individual class member must depend upon an examination of every single contract to determine first whether any violations of law occurred, and second, what are the damages, if any, or what other relief is available to the individual claimant, a class certification accomplishes nothing.” [¶45] A primary purpose of class action suits, particularly money damages claims, is to enable litigation of claims that are worth too little money to be pursued individually. 2 Rubenstein, supra , § 4:65 (5th ed.). “[W]hen many individuals have small damage claims, aggregation is especially appropriate because absent a class suit, it is unlikely that any of the claimants will be accorded relief.” Id. at § 4:47. Thus, N.D.R.Civ.P. 23, provides an “effective procedure for those whose economic position is such that it is unrealistic to expect them to seek to vindicate their rights in separate lawsuits.” Bice , 2004 ND 113, ¶ 7, 681 N.W.2d 74. [¶46] We conclude the district court misanalyzed sub-factor (F) because it did not analyze it in the context of small damage claims.