numerosity requirement in Pennsylvania

2010Appellant need not plead or prove the actual number of class members, so long as he is able to “define the class with some precision” and provide “sufficient indicia [to the court] that more members exist than it would be practicable to join.” Janicik , 305 Pa. Super, at 132, 451 A.2d at 456 . (citations omitted) Defendants claimed plaintiffs failed to meet the numerosity requirement because the class was not ascertainable.

2002Appellant need not plead or prove the actual number of class members, so long as he is able to “define the class with some precision” and provide “sufficient indicia to the court that more members exist than it would be practicable to join.” Janicik, 451 A.2d at 456 . ¶ 15 Appellee contends, and the trial court agreed, that Appellant’s proposed class fails to satisfy the numerosity requirement for class certification because Appellee is not capable of identifying the total number of subscribers who actually paid late fees during the proposed period of time, thereby rendering Appellant’s define

2002For example, Chrysler argues that the class was improperly defined. “[Wjhere the class definition is so poorly established that the court is unable to ascertain who the potential class members are, then the numerosity requirement is not met.” Weinberg, 740 A.2d at 1165 .

2000Pa.R.C.P. 1702(1); Weinberg, 740 A.2d at 1165 .

2022Likewise, in In re Sheriff’s Excess Proceeds Litigation, 98 A.3d 706 , this Court held that the numerosity requirement for obtaining class action status was not satisfied in a mandamus and unjust enrichment action filed against the sheriff’s office by the owner of properties sold at sheriff’s sales.

2013Commonality: Rule 1702(2) 32) The questions of law or fact common to the class generally exist if the members’ grievances arise out of the “same practice or course of conduct on the part of the class opponent.” Liss II, 983 A.2d at 664 . 33) Commonality is established by showing a “common source of liability.” Kia, 34 A.3d at 22 . 34) The court finds that the following issues concerning the origin and cause of the fire and the cause or causes of the spread of the fire are common as to all class members: (a) whether the defendants failed properly to select, install, inspect, operate, manage and

2013Commonality: Rule 1702(2) 32) The questions of law or fact common to the class generally exist if the members’ grievances arise out of the “same practice or course of conduct on the part of the class opponent.” Liss II, 983 A.2d at 664 . 33) Commonality is established by showing a “common source of liability.” Kia, 34 A.3d at 22 . 34) The court finds that the following issues concerning the origin and cause of the fire and the cause or causes of the spread of the fire are common as to all class members: (a) whether the defendants failed properly to select, install, inspect, operate, manage and

2013Commonality: Rule 1702(2) 32) The questions of law or fact common to the class generally exist if the members’ grievances arise out of the “same practice or course of conduct on the part of the class opponent.” Liss II, 983 A.2d at 664 . 33) Commonality is established by showing a “common source of liability.” Kia, 34 A.3d at 22 . 34) The court finds that the following issues concerning the origin and cause of the fire and the cause or causes of the spread of the fire are common as to all class members: (a) whether the defendants failed properly to select, install, inspect, operate, manage and

2013Commonality: Rule 1702(2) 32) The questions of law or fact common to the class generally exist if the members’ grievances arise out of the “same practice or course of conduct on the part of the class opponent.” Liss II, 983 A.2d at 664 . 33) Commonality is established by showing a “common source of liability.” Kia, 34 A.3d at 22 . 34) The court finds that the following issues concerning the origin and cause of the fire and the cause or causes of the spread of the fire are common as to all class members: (a) whether the defendants failed properly to select, install, inspect, operate, manage and

1986Indeed, the United States Supreme Court in American Pipe felt it important to note that maintenance of that class action “was denied not for ... lack of standing of the representative. .., Id. at 553 [ 94 S.Ct. at 766 ] (quoting lower court opinion) (emphasis added), but rather solely because of failure to satisfy the numerosity requirement under the federal class action rules.

1981In Oas v. Com., 8 Commw. 118, 301 A. 2d 93 (1973), the court addressed the issue of identification of the class on whose behalf the action was brought.

1975Defendant admits there can be no hard, fast rule with respect to numerosity but cites to us Minersville Coal Co. v. Anthracite Export Ass’n, 55 F.R.D. 426 (M.D.Pa. 1971). for the proposition that at least one federal district considers 330 plaintiffs not so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

1974Despite the fact that mere number is not the sole criterion in satisfying the numerosity requirement, it is significant to note that a four member class was not numerous enough to sustain a class action: Hyde v. First & Merchants National Bank, 41 F.R.D. 527 (W.D.V. 1967); 16 members were likewise insufficient: DeMarco v. Fdens, 490 P. 2d 836 (2d Cir. 1968); while, 18 members were found to be so numerous that joinder was impracticable: Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hospital Ass’n, 375 P. 2d 648 (4th Cir. 1967); and, class actions have been held maintainable in the following repre

1974Despite the fact that mere number is not the sole criterion in satisfying the numerosity requirement, it is significant to note that a four member class was not numerous enough to sustain a class action: Hyde v. First & Merchants National Bank, 41 F.R.D. 527 (W.D.V. 1967); 16 members were likewise insufficient: DeMarco v. Fdens, 490 P. 2d 836 (2d Cir. 1968); while, 18 members were found to be so numerous that joinder was impracticable: Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hospital Ass’n, 375 P. 2d 648 (4th Cir. 1967); and, class actions have been held maintainable in the following repre

1974Despite the fact that mere number is not the sole criterion in satisfying the numerosity requirement, it is significant to note that a four member class was not numerous enough to sustain a class action: Hyde v. First & Merchants National Bank, 41 F.R.D. 527 (W.D.V. 1967); 16 members were likewise insufficient: DeMarco v. Fdens, 490 P. 2d 836 (2d Cir. 1968); while, 18 members were found to be so numerous that joinder was impracticable: Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hospital Ass’n, 375 P. 2d 648 (4th Cir. 1967); and, class actions have been held maintainable in the following repre

1974Despite the fact that mere number is not the sole criterion in satisfying the numerosity requirement, it is significant to note that a four member class was not numerous enough to sustain a class action: Hyde v. First & Merchants National Bank, 41 F.R.D. 527 (W.D.V. 1967); 16 members were likewise insufficient: DeMarco v. Fdens, 490 P. 2d 836 (2d Cir. 1968); while, 18 members were found to be so numerous that joinder was impracticable: Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hospital Ass’n, 375 P. 2d 648 (4th Cir. 1967); and, class actions have been held maintainable in the following repre