NATIONAL MASS TORTS AND CLASS ACTION ATTORNEYS

There are many factors to consider in choosing a Mass Tort or Class Action attorney. Mass Torts and Class Actions involve complex claims that are usually the subject of extensive investigation, discovery, motion practice and, in some instances, trial. But do not feel overwhelmed – you are not in this alone. Use the many resources available to you. Talk to an experienced law firm and do not be afraid to ask questions, lots of questions. Use their expertise to help you make choices that are best for you. Most importantly, do not delay – legal claims have applicable limitations periods. Different types of important evidence can be difficult or impossible to obtain over time. It is imperative for you to get out in front of this. Finally, feel free to contact us at Stark & Stark for a free consultation. Established in 1933, we are a firm of over 80 experienced attorneys, who can help assess any claims that you may have and to help you to understand the lawsuit and settlement process.

Simply stated, Mass Torts, involve many claims that are similar in many respects so that they can be consolidated for some procedures, but have differences that require the cases to maintain their own separate identities (such as thousands of consumers who purchased the same product that caused many different types of bodily injuries under certain circumstances).Class Actions, on the other hand, involve many claims that are so similar in all respects that they can all be litigated together in a single case (such as thousands of consumers who purchased the same product that just did not work as effectively as expected).

Accordingly, in a Mass Tort individual complaints are brought by separate parties, and while those cases are consolidated before a single judge, they maintain their individual case status. In a Class Action, by contrast, a complaint is filed on behalf of a small number of named parties alleging an injury on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals whose identities are yet unknown.

The term Mass Tort is generally used to connote a consolidation of related mass personal injury and property damage lawsuits, involving claims by numerous plaintiffs against a limited number of defendants. Mass torts are consolidated for certain purposes that permit the court system to manage a large volume of similar, but unique claims. Many times, it is the varying liability, damages and procedural issues across individual, or categories of, Mass Tort cases that render those cases much less amenable to Class Action treatment, and more suited to mass action consolidation.

Similar to Class Actions, the federal Mass Tort standards developed first, followed by their state analogues. Congress established the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation (“JPML”) in April 1968 and granted it authority to consolidate and then transfer pretrial proceedings for civil cases involving common questions of fact to a single judicial district. The JPML is empowered to consolidate virtually any type of civil cases filed in the federal district courts into a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”).

The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court appoints the members of the JPML, which is composed of seven district or appellate court judges, each of whom must be from a different judicial circuit. The consolidation and transfer of an action may be initiated by the JPML itself or upon a motion filed with the JPML by any party to the action. Congress authorized the JPML to approve the consolidation and coordination of pretrial proceedings with the goal of achieving a balance between efficiency and fairness. The aim is consolidation in order to avoid conflicting contemporaneous pretrial rulings, and the JPML has discretion regarding which judge will preside over the MDL proceedings. The JPML can assign the consolidated MDL case to a district judge of the district to which the cases are transferred, or it may assign the proceedings to an experienced judge from a district that does not have any of the consolidated cases. The JPML can also request that a judge from another district or circuit be assigned temporarily by the Chief Justice or the chief judge of the circuit. The JPML also has authority to remand the consolidated action back to the originating, transferor court. In keeping with the overall purpose of judicial economy, a remand is appropriate where it will “best serve the expeditious disposition of the litigation.”

The benefits of a Mass Tort MDL include uniform pleadings, discovery, case management, and motion practice before a judge that has the experience and resources to effectively manage complex litigation. In this manner, Mass Tort MDLs are effective in avoiding conflicting rulings and employing specialized case management mechanisms (such as the preparation and use of “bellwether trials”). The MDL structure also permits the plaintiffs’ attorneys to pool and maximize their own resources to bring claims that would not be economically feasible if brought on their own. In addition, an MDL not only serves as a judicial convenience, but can be an administrative necessity. Based upon the size of the average Mass Tort MDL (consisting of several thousand individual claims) it would likely take decades to adjudicate all aspects of each claim separately, even if that were possible.

Class action is a term used to describe a group of individuals designated as a class, having a common interest in the outcome of litigation. The Class Action is a procedural device created under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (or under its state court analogues), which allows for global resolution of common claims. Thus, through the prosecution of claims on behalf of an entire certified class, the Class Action mechanism provides a representative model of resolution.

In 1938, Congress approved the first Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23, which provided for Class Actions. In 1966, Congress approved changes to Rule 23 that created a three-part classification system with requirements specific to each of the three types of traditional Class Action classifications. These three types are defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) and consist of: 1) actions where prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varied adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards for the party opposing the class or adjudications that, as a practical matter, would substantially impair non-class members’ ability to protect their interests; 2) actions where the party seeks final injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; and 3) actions where the party seeks monetary damages involving questions of law or fact that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, in which a Class Action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

The current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 prescribes a number of conditions and prerequisites for class certification. At the outset, an individual or group of individuals can seek class status only if: 1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable – numerosity; 2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class – commonality; 3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class – typicality; and 4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class – adequacy of representation. The different forms of Class Actions are set forth in detail in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1) – Risk of Inconsistent or Dispositive Adjudications; Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) – Declaratory or Injunctive Relief; and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) – Damages.Once these prerequisites have been established, a party seeking damages through class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure23(b)(3) must then also show that: 1) common questions of law or fact predominate; and 2) a Class Action is the superior way to adjudicate the controversy.

After the lead plaintiff (also known as a “class representative”) files a Class Action lawsuit, the parties conduct discovery and then present the claims to the court to determine if the claims meet the requirements of a Class Action. If so, the court will “certify” the lawsuit to proceed as a Class Action. If the Class Action is certified, notice will be provided to the other class members and the Class Action claims will proceed to trial or settlement. In the typical Class Action, potential members of the class will have the right to make an election to either receive the benefits of any recovery in the lawsuit, or instead to opt out of the class action and pursue a recovery on their own.

The benefits of a Class Action arise from the consolidation of similar legal claims brought by a small number of class representatives in order to represent the interests of a large class of claimants. This fosters efficient judicial administration by saving time and money for the parties and the public and promotes consistent decisions regarding similar claims. Class Actions also allow multiple claims from several persons in various jurisdictions and can bring together smaller claims, which would not have been economically feasible to maintain as individual claims.

You did some research on your Mass Tort or Class Action claims – now you will want to get some legal advice. Two things to keep in mind: 1) make sure to talk to a law firm that specializes in state and federal Mass Tort and Class Action lawsuits and settlements across the nation; and 2) do not wait, because there are different deadlines and statutes of limitations that apply to your claims. Do your homework and research the firm you will be working with – there is a good chance it will not be the same lawyer that handled your last speeding ticket, or one of the 1-800 numbers that flash across your television screen late at night. Make sure you are dealing with a law firm of experienced trial attorneys that will be handling your case, not just some marketing firm. It is important to put this on the top of your pile of things to do, as only bad things can happen if you wait too long to pursue a claim. Finally, note that law firms will invariably take your case on a contingency basis, meaning you do not pay anything if your case is not successful – this should be spelled out in your retainer agreement.