" The commonality and typicality requirements often ‘ tend to merge into one another, so that similar considerations animate [the] analysis' of both." Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Marisol A., 126 F.3d at 376); seeGen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982).
only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Rule 23(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; see Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir. 2010). What matters to class certification is not the raising of common 'questions' -- even in droves -- but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.
the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Rule 23(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; see Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir. 2010). What matters to class certification is not the raising of common 'questions' -- even in droves -- but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.
Defendants contend that, without some evidence linking the rates of dismissal with a judicial determination concerning the probable cause for the underlying issuance of the summonses, the Court would be required to engage in tens of thousands of individualized inquiries on the merits of each putative plaintiff's case in order to determine who is in the class. However, an argument similar to that raised by Defendants in the present action was addressed by the Second Circuit in Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467 (2d Cir.2010) and by this Court in Casale v. Kelly, 257 F.R.D. 396 (S.D.N.Y.2009). Although both Brown and Casale addressed the ascertainability of a class in the context of a Rule 23(b)(3) inquiry, the legal conclusions in these cases are equally applicable to class ascertainability in a Rule 23(a) context.
only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Rule 23(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; see Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir. 2010). "What matters to class certification is not the raising of common `questions' — even in droves — but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate commonanswers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.
"The commonality requirement is met if there is a common question of law or fact shared by the class." Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir. 2010). Reciting common "questions" is not sufficient to establish commonality; instead the plaintiff must "demonstrate that the class members 'have suffered the same injury.'" Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 (1982)).
Although the Court considers the two requirements separately, commonality and typicality "'tend to merge into one another, so that similar considerations animate [the] analysis' of both." Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n.13 (1982) ("The commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge. Both serve as guideposts for determining whether under the particular circumstances maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named plaintiff s claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence.").
In addition to satisfying these four criteria, the moving party must demonstrate that the class is maintainable under one of Rule 23(b)'s three subsections. McLaughlin, 522 F.3d at 222; Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 476 (2d Cir. 2010).
" The numerosity requirement provides that the class must be ‘ so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.’ " Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1)). " The commonality requirement is met if there is a common question of law or fact shared by the class."
"The numerosity requirement provides that the class must be 'so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.'" Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467, 475 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1)). "The commonality requirement is met if there is a common question of law or fact shared by the class."