The claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. SeePutnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D.Ohio 1996). Rather, " the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation."
Instead, "the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the [d]efendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation." Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand , 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies , 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996) ). Additionally, although Rule 23(a)(2) speaks of "questions" in the plural, there need be only one question common to the class.
Instead, "the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the [d]efendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation." Bovee v. Coopers & Lyband, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996)). Additionally, although Rule 23(a)(2) speaks of "questions" in the plural, there need be only one question common to the class.
The claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. SeePutnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D.Ohio 1996). Rather, " the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation."
Moreover, the nature of the claims makes joinder impracticable, as the cost of litigating these constitutional claims would likely outweigh the monetary injuries suffered. Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S. D. Ohio 1996) (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 158-61 (1974)) (noting that litigating constitutional challenges is costly, and that class members suffering "the cost of a rental car for a few days" would be unlikely to bring suit). With inspection fees as low as $50 per inspection, "the financial disincentives to initiating a lawsuit such as this one create a significant hardship for prospective plaintiffs and warrant the conclusion that the questioned statutes would go unchallenged were a class not certified."
Instead, "the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation." Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996)); Mayo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 148 F.R.D. 576, 580 (S.D. Ohio 1993)). Although Rule 23(a)(2) speaks of "questions" in the plural, there need be only one question common to the class.
However, the claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. Bovee v. Coopers Lybrand, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996)). Furthermore, there need only be one question common to the class.
Bovee v. Coopers Lybrand, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D. Ohio 1996)). Furthermore, there need only be one question common to the class.
The claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand, 216 F.R.D. 596, 608 (S.D.Oh.2003) (citing Putnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D.Ohio 1996)). Rather, " the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation."
The claims of the potential class members need not be factually identical. SeePutnam v. Davies, 169 F.R.D. 89, 93 (S.D.Ohio 1996). Rather, " the commonality requirement will be satisfied as long as the members of the class have allegedly been affected by a general policy of the Defendant and the general policy is the focus of the litigation."