Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1516689
 
 

Footnotes (121)



 


 



Aggregation, Community, and the Line Between


Elizabeth Chamblee Burch


University of Georgia Law School

May 10, 2010

Kansas Law Review, Vol. 58, p. 101, 2010
FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 414

Abstract:     
As class-action theorists, we sometimes focus so heavily on the class certification threshold that we neglect to reassess the line itself. The current line asks whether procedurally aggregated individuals form a sufficiently cohesive group before the decision to sue. Given this symposium’s topic - the state of aggregate litigation and the boundaries of class actions in the decade after Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor and Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. - the time is ripe to challenge our assumptions about this line in non-class aggregation. Accordingly, this Article examines group cohesion and asks whether the current line is the only dividing line or even the correct one. If we are willing to look for genuine cohesion among individuals who are procedurally aggregated but lack sufficiently common traits before the decision to sue, then we will find an alternative, but perhaps more compelling, justification for binding collective interests.

This Article draws on the dominant justifications for group litigation - consent and interest representation - to explore this alternative line-drawing scheme in terms of political theory. Encouraging plaintiffs to form groups and reach decisions through deliberation relies on a mix of individual consent and moral obligation. Allowing plaintiffs to exercise their free will when deciding whether to associate with others preserves the liberal tenet of self-determination and escapes the anti-democratic criticism leveled at class actions. Yet, a purely liberal approach fails to capture the obligatory aspect of reciprocal promises to cooperate and the communal obligations that attach. Although plaintiffs voluntarily enter into the group, once they are group members and have tied together their collective litigation fates, they should not be permitted to exit when doing so violates their commitments. Of course, the community itself determines the content of its members’ rights and obligations to one another. Thus, this Article concludes by explaining the rationale for group autonomy in terms of pluralism and communitarianism.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

Keywords: nonclass aggregation, multi-district litigation, class action, liberalism, communitarianism, Rule 23(b)(2), Rule 23(b)(3), group cohesion

JEL Classification: K40, K41

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: December 2, 2009 ; Last revised: May 11, 2010

Suggested Citation

Burch, Elizabeth Chamblee, Aggregation, Community, and the Line Between (May 10, 2010). Kansas Law Review, Vol. 58, p. 101, 2010; FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 414. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1516689

Contact Information

Elizabeth Chamblee Burch (Contact Author)
University of Georgia Law School ( email )
225 Herty Drive
Athens, GA 30602
United States

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 722
Downloads: 69
Download Rank: 205,054
Footnotes:  121

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.359 seconds