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

Heading: The Risk of Inconsistent Adjudications

Text: [¶31] Rule 23(c)(1)(B), N.D.R.Civ.P., requires consideration of: whether prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for a party opposing the class. The risk of inconsistent adjudications is not that some might win their case while others lose theirs, nor does the possibility of different monetary judgment among potential class members pose a risk of varying adjudications or incompatible standards. See Klagues , 2002 ND 59, ¶ 14, 643 N.W.2d 45. Rather, the inconsistent and varying adjudications sub-factor (B), “only applies to actions in which the non-class party could be sued for different and incompatible affirmative relief, as opposed to actions seeking money damages.” Id. at ¶ 13. Incompatible standards under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B) generally “occur when the party opposing the class certification would be unable to comply with one judgment without violating the terms of another judgment.” Klagues , at ¶ 13. [¶32] The district court found this factor did not favor certification because individual recovery depends on the merits of each individual’s claim. It found that because the standards to which the defendants must be held are established by statute and do not vary from plaintiff to plaintiff, no danger of inconsistent or varying adjudications exists. [¶33] We find the district court misapplied the law because it did not analyze this sub-factor in the context of whether the defendants would be unable to comply with one judgment without violating the terms of another judgment if separate actions were brought by individual class members. See Klagues , 2002 ND 59, ¶ 13, 643 N.W.2d 45.