Court Opinion

ID: 9552172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:05:42.744608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:42.829720
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring specially.
My colleague’s dissent in this case has prompted some philosophical reflections of my own. I agree completely with the majority opinion in this case. It is sound in its reasoning, and it is sound in the policy that it embraces.
One of my reflections is pragmatic. The record and briefs inform us that five of the plaintiffs are citizens of Wyoming, while potentially there are 9,995 who are citizens of some other state. Wyoming is a small state with limited judicial resources. While I might share a concern over disenfranchised Wyoming citizens if that eventuality should occur, I am not persuaded that we need to turn our limited resources to the service of thousands of citizens of other states who certainly have the option of pursuing their claims in their home state where they pay taxes and support a judicial system.
Neither am I persuaded that the disparity between the jurisdictional ceilings in justice of the peace courts and county courts leads to some draconian scenario. The word “may” in WYO. R. CIV. P. 28 clearly connotes discretion in the trial court with respect to whether a class action is to be maintained. I trust our district court bench to recognize that it would be inappropriate to permit a class action to go forward in a justice of the peace court county when it could not be maintained in a county court county. I am sure that in such an instance the district court would order that the class action could not be maintained.