Rule 23 amendments
LCJ advocated for consensus positions to achieve class action reforms. To that end, the LCJ Class Actions Committee submitted four comments to the Rule 23 Subcommittee and three comments to the Civil Rules Advisory Committee, which may be viewed below.
After receiving considerable input from LCJ and others, the Rule 23 Subcommittee adopted potential rule amendments on the following topics:
The Committee has put the following three topics on hold: Ascertainability; Rule 68 and offers of judgement; and Settlement Class Certification. It has removed cy pres and issue classes from its agenda.
LCJ also submitted a ground-breaking empirical study demonstrating that no-injury class action cases resolved in the last decade resulted in approximately $4 billion worth of settlements and judgments, yet provided a mere 9 percent—or less—of that amount to class members. A link to that study may be found below.
- LCJ Comment to the Civil Rules Advisory Committee entitled "Amending Rule 23: A Call For Much Needed Reform of Class Action Procedure" submitted October 3, 2016
- LCJ Comment to the Civil Rules Advisory Committee entitled "NINE PERCENT OF FOUR BILLION DOLLARS: NEW EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT RULE 23 SHOULD BE AMENDED TO CURTAIL THE PROBLEMS OF “NO INJURY” CLASS ACTION CASES" - March 14, 2016
- LCJ Comment to the Civil Rules Advisory Committee regarding the Rule 23 Subcommittee’s proposals for possible Rule 23 amendments, and suggesting an additional amendment to limit “no injury” cases - November 3, 2015
- LCJ Brief as Amicus Curiae in support of Petitioner in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Jose Gomez submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court prepared by Andrew Trask and Matthew Fitzgerald at McGuire Woods
- Repairing the Disconnect Between Class Actions and Class Members: Why Rules Governing "No Injury" Cases, Certification Standards for Issue Classes and Notice Need Reform - August 13, 2014
- To Restore a Relationship Between Classes and Their Actions: A Call for Meaningful Reform of Rule 23 to The Civil Rules Advisory and its Rule 23 Subcommittee on behalf of Lawyers for Civil Justice, Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, DRI- The Voice of the Defense Bar, International Association of Defense Counsel – August 9, 2013