Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
16. Is the court likely to grant the performance corporation's motion to dismiss?
A violinist has now brought suit against the performance corporation, asserting the same legal claim and injunctive relief that was litigated in the class action lawsuit. The performance corporation contends that the violinist was part of the class from the previous lawsuit and therefore moved to dismiss the case. The violinist had no knowledge of the previous class action lawsuit, even though ballerina's attorney mailed notice to the violinist.
As the representative of a large class of dancers and musicians, a ballerina brought a class-action lawsuit in federal court against her former employer, a performance corporation. The class was not predominated by common questions of law or fact. However, the class sought injunctive relief that was appropriate for the group as a whole. At trial, the judge found in favor of the performance corporation.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
(i) separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent results;
(ii) injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate for the class as a whole; OR
(iii) common questions of fact or law to the class predominate over individual issues.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 23(b)(2) allows the use of a class action if the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on the grounds that generally apply to the class so that the final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. This type of class action is typically contemplated for civil rights cases where primarily injunctive relief, rather than monetary damages, is sought by the class.
Members of a (b)(2) class (those seeking injunctive or declaratory relief) are not entitled to notice of the claim. The drafters of FRCP 23 contemplated (b)(2) class actions as cases that sought only class-wide relief and notice to class members would not be needed where the only relief would apply to the entire class. In other words, for class actions that do not concern a common question of fact or law, all class members will be bound by the judgment rendered in class action lawsuits, even when a class member did not receive notice of the suit.
A is correct. The class was seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. As the facts state, this is not a «common question» class action, which means notice to all class members was not required, and all members will be bound by the judgment. The violinist, as a member of the class, is bound by the judgment.
B is incorrect. Whether notice was mailed to the violinist is not determinative of whether the previous lawsuit binds the violinist because the class action was not created out of a common question or fact of law. The violinist will be bound regardless of whether notice was mailed because she was a member of the class.
C is incorrect. This choice implies that the violinist had to have actual knowledge of the class action to be bound by it, which is beyond general notice requirements. Moreover, notice to all members of the class is only required in «common question» class action lawsuits pursuant to the FRCP. And, when notice is required, it need not be actual notice given to potential class members.
Here, as the fact pattern indicates, the ballerina's class-action lawsuit is seeking injunctive relief and is not a «common question» class action. Therefore, notice of the lawsuit to the entire class is not required, and the violinist was not entitled to notice, actual or otherwise.
D is incorrect. As explained above, when a class action is not based on a common question of fact or law that predominate over individual issues, notice to all class members is not required. Moreover, the facts indicate that the ballerina's attorney mailed notice to the violinist, which, had this been a common question class action, would have sufficed for all class members.