A class action is a legal proceeding whereby a plaintiff can represent the interests of thousands of people who may have a common interest in the remedy pursued. In order to establish a cognizable class action under Ohio Civ. R. 23, a plaintiff must establish the following criteria:
- the existence of an identifiable and unambiguous class;
- that the named representative of this class be a member of the class;
- that the proposed class be so numerous that joinder of the members of the class is impracticable;
- that there be questions of law and fact common to the class;
- that the claims and defenses of the representatives be typical of the claims and defenses of the members of the class;
- that the representatives must fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class; · that one of the three requirements of Civ. R. 23(B) be satisfied.
The class action procedure in Federal Court has similar requirements.
Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court decided the case of Stammco v. United Telephone Co. of Ohio (2013-Ohio-3013). In a 6-1 decision, the Court resolved a longstanding dispute as to whether a court may properly consider the merits of a plaintiff’s claim in the context of a class certification proceeding. In seeking to prevent a court’s consideration of claim merit issues, the plaintiff’s bar would routinely cite to the Ohio Supreme Court’s prior decision in Ojalvo v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 12 Ohio St.3d 230 (1984) for the proposition that the courts were barred from considering the merits of the plaintiff’s claim when addressing the request for class certification. In Stammco, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified its prior holding in Ojalvo, indicating that the decision stood only for the proposition that a court should not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s case at the certification stage. The Stammco court expressly held that a court could probe the merits of a plaintiff’s claim when evaluating whether a plaintiff satisfied the requirements set forth under Civ. R. 23.
The Supreme Court’s holding in Stammco constitutes a significant weapon to oppose certification of a class action. Often times, the best defense to a class certification petition centers on the nature of the class wide remedy sought and an analysis of how that remedy becomes problematic under the various Civ. R. 23 factors. Under Stammco, a defendant may now challenge the merits of a plaintiff’s class action remedy to the extent it impacts the Civ. R. 23 requirements.
Should you want a full copy of this opinion or have any other questions related to class action litigation, feel free to call upon a member of our Environmental/Mass Tort/Class Action Practice Group.
