Opinion ID: 836210
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: provided in mcr 3.501 must, in fact, be met

Text: The Michigan Court Rules govern the certification of class actions. MCR 3.501(A)(1) provides: One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members in a class action only if: (a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the members of the class that predominate over questions affecting only individual members; (c) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (d) the representative parties will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the class; and (e) the maintenance of the action as a class action will be superior to other available methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice.[ [11] ] The plain language of MCR 3.501(A)(1) is clear: representative plaintiffs may pursue a class action lawsuit only if the enumerated prerequisites have been met. The procedure for certifying a class in Michigan underscores this requirement. Because a plaintiff must move for certification that the action may be maintained as a class action, [12] the plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the trial court by a preponderance of the evidence that the prerequisites to class certification have been met. Moreover, once the plaintiff moves to certify a class, the trial court may allow the action to be maintained as a class action, may deny the motion, or may order that a ruling be postponed pending discovery or other preliminary procedures. [13] In other words, MCR 3.501 expressly contemplates that the trial court should make an independent determination that the proposed class meets the requirements for class certification. Thus, a trial court may certify a class only if the plaintiffs have provided sufficient information that each prerequisite to class certification has been met. Because part III(A) of the majority opinion correctly articulates this standard, I join that section of the opinion. I also concur in the majority's decision to overrule Neal v. James [14] to the extent it require[s] a trial court to accept as true a plaintiffs bare assertion that a class certification prerequisite is met.... [15] The Court of Appeals in Neal held that a trial court must accept the allegations made in support of the request for certification as true. [16] Although the trial court in the instant case did not expressly indicate its reliance on Neal, as a published Court of Appeals decision, it is binding on all lower courts. [17] The requirement in Neal that a certifying court is bound to accept the plaintiffs' allegations supporting its motion for class certification as true, however, is inconsistent with the plain meaning of MCR 3.501 as articulated above. Moreover, it cites stale federal precedent for its statement of law. [18] Accordingly, I concur with the majority that Neal is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with the rule of law articulated today.