Bullock v. Board of Education (2002)

“Commonality does not require class members to share all issues in the suit, but simply a single common issue,” and “[t]hus, factual differences among members’ cases will not preclude certification if the class members share the same legal theory.” Bullock v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cty., 210 F.R.D. 556, 560 (D.

Montgomery Cty., 210 F.R.D. 556, 560 (D.

Md. 2020) (emphasis in original) (quoting Bullock v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cty., 210 F.R.D. 556, 560 (D.

A “claim may differ factually and still be ‘typical’ of the claims of class members if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members[.]” J.O.P., 338 F.R.D. at 55 (quoting Bullock v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cnty., 210 F.R.D. 556, 560 (D.

Additionally, Plaintiff notes that “a plaintiff's claim may differ □ factually and still be ‘typical’ of the claims of class members if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members, and if his or her . claims are based on the same legal theory.” ECF 44-1, at 22 (citing Bullock v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cunty., 210 F.R.D. 556, 560 (D.

As this Court has previously noted, the typicality requirement determines “whether a sufficient relationship exists between the injury to the named plaintiff and the conduct affecting the class, so that the court may properly attribute a collective nature to the challenged conduct.” Bullock v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery County, 210 F.R.D. 556, 560 (D.Md.2002) (citations omitted).

The typicality requirement determines “whether a sufficient relationship exists between the injury to the named plaintiff and the conduct affecting the class, so that the court may properly attribute a collective nature to the challenged conduct.” Bullock v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery County, 210 F.R.D. 556, 560 (D.Md.2002) (citations omitted).

The requirement determines “whether a sufficient relationship exists between the injury to the named plaintiff and the conduct affecting the class, so that the court may properly attribute a collective nature to the challenged conduct.” Bullock v. Board of Education, 210 F.R.D. 556, 560 (D.Md.2002) (Chasanow, J.) (citations omitted).

Bullock v. Board of Ed. of Montgomery County, 210 F.R.D. 556, 560 (D.Md.2002).

See Bullock v. Bd. of Educ., 210 F.R.D. 556, 558-59 (D.Md. 2002).