Class Actions and Justiciability

70 Pages Posted: 14 Apr 2013 Last revised: 25 Jul 2014

Date Written: April 2014

Abstract

A lingering issue in class action law concerns the “case[]” or “controvers[y]” requirement of Article III, otherwise known as the requirement of justiciability. For purposes of justiciability doctrines such as standing, mootness, and ripeness, is the class action brought by all class members, some class members, or just the class representative?

This article argues that the answer should be none of the above — it should be the class attorney. The article first shows that the function of the class action is to assign dispositive control of, and a partial beneficial interest in, the class members’ claims to the class attorney, which is essential for the categories of litigation in which class actions are permitted. Put another way, the class action functionally creates a trust, with the class attorney as trustee of the claims for the benefit of the class. As a result, the trust function of the class action makes the class attorney the de facto real party in interest.

The article then shows that the current law of justiciability provides some support for viewing the class attorney as the relevant party for Article III purposes. It shows, in particular, that current law permits a court to recognize an uninjured party like the class attorney as the relevant party when, as in all class action settings, such recognition is necessary to adequately protect the interests of those injured.

The article concludes by exploring what the trust function of the class action can teach us about the law of justiciability. It argues that, like the class action, the function of the law of justiciability can be understood as ensuring the adequate representation of the interests of nonparties. The article then argues that, as evidenced by the trust function of the class action, the law’s insistence on a plaintiff having a personal injury is misplaced. Instead, federal courts should focus on (1) whether the parties entitled to bring suit have the proper incentives to adequately represent all the interests implicated by the action, and (2) whether judicial intervention is appropriate to protect all the relevant interests at stake given other political alternatives.

Keywords: class action, justiciability, standing, ripeness, mootness, political question, trust, adequacy of representation

JEL Classification: K13, K41

Suggested Citation

Campos, Sergio J., Class Actions and Justiciability (April 2014). Florida Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2014, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2250488

Sergio J. Campos (Contact Author)

Boston College - Law School ( email )

885 Centre Street
East Wing 316
Newton, MA 02459-1163
United States
617.552.4387 (Phone)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
141
Abstract Views
1,868
Rank
370,936
PlumX Metrics