Comments on: Katrina Formaldehyde Plaintiffs: Not A Class

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 02:21:38 +0000

Is there a lay definition of "class"? I'd prefer not to confuse it, when (1) the main problem with class actions is the attempt to make class actions out of cases inappropriate for class certification; and (2) the perfectly appropriate "mass tort" applies. I'm updating it in a longer publication, but I wrote about the various Vioxx class actions here in 2006.

By: SSFC

SSFC — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:54:25 +0000

Thanks for the clarification on the tangent Ted. I couldn’t determine, from your own reporting on the matter, which is where I went to research it, whether the settlement had gone forward or not (I blame keywords and trying to blog while writing a summary judgment brief at work), and ignored certification issues at other blogs.

Of course an enrollment of 43000 or more people into a settlement is close enough for the lay definition of a “class,” whether or not a judge has ordered Rule 23 certification.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:19:23 +0000

The Vioxx settlement wasn’t a class action, and the only courts to consider certification of the Vioxx suits as a personal injury class action rejected it on the same grounds as this court. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 2006 WL 3391432 (E. D. La. Nov. 22, 2006).

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:16:18 +0000

http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/FEMA07md1873/Orders/order1014.pdf