commonality requirement in Louisiana

2021This reaffirmed, individualized analysis as articulated in Covington also necessarily causes the commonality requirement of class certification to fail, in that “[c]ommonality requires a party seeking certification to demonstrate the class members’ claims depend on a common contention, and that common contention must be one capable of class-wide resolution — one where the ‘determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.’” Price, 79 So.3d at 969 , citing, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 564 U.S. at 350 , 131 S.Ct. at 25

2021This reaffirmed, individualized analysis as articulated in Covington also necessarily causes the commonality requirement of class certification to fail, in that “[c]ommonality requires a party seeking certification to demonstrate the class members’ claims depend on a common contention, and that common contention must be one capable of class-wide resolution — one where the ‘determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.’” Price, 79 So.3d at 969 , citing, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 564 U.S. at 350 , 131 S.Ct. at 25

2022The Louisiana Supreme Court has explained that the predominance requirement is more demanding than the commonality requirement, because it “entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class,” a process that ultimately “prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials.” See Dupree, supra, 51 So.3d at 683 ; Brooks, supra, 13 So.3d at 553 .

2014In this [7case, the testimony and evidence show that the class is easily definable and that its members are easily identifiable and that there are a sufficient number of aggrieved parties such that joinder is impractical. [T]he predominance requirement is more demanding than the commonality requirement, because it “entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class,” a process that ultimately “prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials.” D

2015This court has explained that the | ^predominance requirement is more demanding than the commonality requirement, because it “entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class,” a process that ultimately “prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials.” Id. (quoting O’Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732 , 738 (5th Cir.2003)).

2014The Louisiana Supreme Court has explained that the predominance requirement is more demanding than the commonality requirement, because it “entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class,” a process that ultimately “prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials.” Id. (quoting O’Sullivan v, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732 , 738 (5th Cir.2003)).6 Since the 1997 revision, La.

2012Duhe v. Texaco, Inc., 1999-2002 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/01) , 779 So.2d 1070 , writ denied, 2001-0637 (La.4/27/01), 791 So.2d 637 .

2008Duhe v. Texaco, Inc., 99-2002 (La.App. 3rd Cir.2/7/01), 779 So.2d 1070, 1078 , writ denied, 01-0637 (La.4/27/01), 791 So.2d 637 .

2020Co., supra. The supreme court has explained that “the predominance requirement is more demanding than the commonality requirement, because it entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class, a process that ultimately prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials.” Alexander v. Norfolk S. Corp., 2011-2793 (La. 3/9/12), 82 So. 3d 1234 ; Price v. Martin, supra; Dupree v. Lafayette Ins.

2018Corp. , 11-2793, p. 2 (La. 3/9/12), 82 So.3d 1234 , 1236 (quoting Dupree v. Lafayette Ins.

2017In the context of mass tort litigation, this court has further refined the commonality requirement, stating that, in such cases, "in order to meet the common cause requirement, each member of the class must be able to prove individual causation based on the same set of operative facts and law that would be used by any other class member to prove causation." Brooks , 08-2035 at 17, 13 So.3d at 559 .

2014“The predominance requirement is more demanding than the commonality requirement and, as such, |18mandates caution, especially where ‘individual stakes are high and disparities among class members great.’ ” Brooks , 08-2035, p. 19, 13 So.3d at 560 , quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. 591 , 117 S.Ct. at 2250 , 138 L.Ed.2d 689 .

2012Duhe v. Texaco, Inc., 1999-2002 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/01) , 779 So.2d 1070 , writ denied, 2001-0637 (La.4/27/01), 791 So.2d 637 .

2008Duhe v. Texaco, Inc., 99-2002 (La.App. 3rd Cir.2/7/01), 779 So.2d 1070, 1078 , writ denied, 01-0637 (La.4/27/01), 791 So.2d 637 .

2010The predominance requirement is more demanding than the commonality requirement and, as such, mandates caution, especially where "individual stakes are high and disparities among class members great." The predominance requirement "entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class," a process that ultimately "prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials." Brooks, p. 19, 13 So.3d 560 ; O'Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732

2004The Fifth Circuit disagreed, holding that the stipulations tended to satisfy the commonality requirement, being "more of an admission of common issues than a negation of them." Id.

2006Id. at p. 10, 703 So.2d at 548 .

2006Id. at p. 10, 703 So.2d at 548 .

2020Co., supra; Price v. Martin, supra. To satisfy the commonality requirement, the plaintiffs were required to show that the claims asserted arose from a common cause or disaster.5 Causation must be the same for all class members with the same set of operative facts and law.

2020Co., supra. The supreme court has explained that “the predominance requirement is more demanding than the commonality requirement, because it entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class, a process that ultimately prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials.” Alexander v. Norfolk S. Corp., 2011-2793 (La. 3/9/12), 82 So. 3d 1234 ; Price v. Martin, supra; Dupree v. Lafayette Ins.

2017Pollard v. Alpha Tech. , 31 So.3d at 590 -91 .

2011Marsh , 42,176, p. 9, 957 So.2d at 908 , and cases cited therein.

2011Price, 10-599 at 8-9, 56 So.3d at 1115 .

2007Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Bd., XXXX-XXXX, 0826, 0827, 0828, 0828, p. 14 (La.App. 4th Cir.6/27/01), 790 So.2d 734 , 744 and cases cited therein.

2006As noted in Castano, supra, the commonality inquiry requires the court to go beyond the pleadings and identify the substantive issues that will determine the outcome of the litigation.

2006Defendants cite Richardson v. American Cyanamid Co., 99-675 to 99-682 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/29/00) , 757 So.2d 135 in support of their argument.

2006See McCastle, 456 So.2d at 616 ; Stevens, 309 So.2d at 148-150 ; Williams, 350 So.2d at 133 .

2006See McCastle, 456 So.2d at 616 ; Stevens, 309 So.2d at 148-150 ; Williams, 350 So.2d at 133 .

1999One of the three issues the court must consider in deciding the commonality requirement is whether "questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." Banks , 98-0551 at 7; Andry , 97-0793 at p. 7, 710 So.2d at 1131 .

1999Id.