LAWYERS FOR CIVIL JUSTICE
  • About Us
    • Who We Are >
      • Corporate Members
      • Law Firm Members
      • Defense Bar Organization Members
      • Board of Directors
      • Staff
    • LCJ Civil Justice Fellows Program
    • LCJ Annual Report
    • JOIN LCJ
    • Contact LCJ
  • Our Initiatives
    • Clarify Expert Evidence Standards
    • REFORM OF PRIVILEGE LOG REQUIREMENTS
    • Rules for MDLs
    • Allocate Discovery Costs
    • Disclose Third Party Litigation Funders
    • Reduce Burdensome Discovery
    • Fix Rule 30(B)(6)
    • Reform Rule 23
    • Preserve Judicial Independence
  • Amicus Briefs
  • LCJ In the News
  • Membership Meetings & Resources
    • LCJ CALENDAR
    • Member Login
    • MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS

Reform Class Action

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.


Picture
After receiving considerable input from LCJ and others, the Rule 23 Subcommittee adopted potential rule amendments on the following topics:​

  • “Frontloading”
  • Excluding “preliminary approvals” of class certification and orders regarding notice to the class about possible settlements from immediate appeal under Rule 23(f)
  • Clarifying Rule 23(c)(2)(B) to state that Rule 23(e)(1) notice triggers the opt-out period
  • Notice to unnamed class members
  • Handling objections by class members to proposed settlements
  • Criteria for judicial approval of class-action settlements

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.

Supporting Materials

  • 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 Thoughts on the Rule 23 Subcommittee's Ideas for Reform - October 9, 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

  • LCJ Comment on Rule 23 Conceptual Sketches - April 7, 2015

  • 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
 Copyright Lawyers For Civil Justice.  All Rights Reserved.
LCJ is a non-profit 501(c)(6) trade association and does not employ any attorneys for hire.  
1530 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1030 | Arlington, Virginia, US 22209
Phone:
 202-429-0045 | contact | sitemap
Picture
  • About Us
    • Who We Are >
      • Corporate Members
      • Law Firm Members
      • Defense Bar Organization Members
      • Board of Directors
      • Staff
    • LCJ Civil Justice Fellows Program
    • LCJ Annual Report
    • JOIN LCJ
    • Contact LCJ
  • Our Initiatives
    • Clarify Expert Evidence Standards
    • REFORM OF PRIVILEGE LOG REQUIREMENTS
    • Rules for MDLs
    • Allocate Discovery Costs
    • Disclose Third Party Litigation Funders
    • Reduce Burdensome Discovery
    • Fix Rule 30(B)(6)
    • Reform Rule 23
    • Preserve Judicial Independence
  • Amicus Briefs
  • LCJ In the News
  • Membership Meetings & Resources
    • LCJ CALENDAR
    • Member Login
    • MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS