corresponding federal rule in Alabama

2011Bd., 437 So.2d 1014, 1025 (Ala.1983), and Rowan v. First Bank of Boaz, 476 So.2d 44, 46 (Ala.1985)). “ ‘The party seeking certification bears the burden of showing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one requirement of Rule 23(b) have been met.’ Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group L.P., 247 F.R.D. 156, 164 (C.D.Cal.2007).

2000As the trial court noted in its order, Alabama's Rule 23 and the corresponding federal rule (Rule 23 , Fed.R.Civ.P.) are "virtually identical," Marshall Durbin Co. v. Jasper Utilities Bd. , 437 So.2d 1014 , 1025 (Ala. 1983), and "[f]ederal authorities are persuasive when [a court is] interpreting the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure." Rowan v. First Bank of Boaz , 476 So.2d 44 , 46 (Ala. 1985).

2011Bd., 437 So.2d 1014, 1025 (Ala.1983), and Rowan v. First Bank of Boaz, 476 So.2d 44, 46 (Ala.1985)). “ ‘The party seeking certification bears the burden of showing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one requirement of Rule 23(b) have been met.’ Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group L.P., 247 F.R.D. 156, 164 (C.D.Cal.2007).

2000As the trial court noted in its order, Alabama's Rule 23 and the corresponding federal rule (Rule 23 , Fed.R.Civ.P.) are "virtually identical," Marshall Durbin Co. v. Jasper Utilities Bd. , 437 So.2d 1014 , 1025 (Ala. 1983), and "[f]ederal authorities are persuasive when [a court is] interpreting the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure." Rowan v. First Bank of Boaz , 476 So.2d 44 , 46 (Ala. 1985).

2011We also note that, in examining the several prerequisites for class certification contained in Rule 23, it should be kept in mind that ‘Alabama’s Rule 23 and the corresponding federal rule (Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P.) are “virtually identical,” ... and “[fjederal authorities are persuasive when [a court is] interpreting the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.” ’ Mitchell v. H & R Block, Inc., 783 So.2d 812, 816 (Ala.2000) (quoting Marshall Durbin & Co. v. Jasper Utils.

2010We also note that, in examining the several prerequisites for class certification contained in Rule 23, it should be kept in mind that "Alabama's Rule 23 and the corresponding federal rule (Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P.) are `virtually identical,'... and `[f]ederal authorities are persuasive when [a court is] interpreting the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.'" Mitchell v. H & R Block, Inc., 783 So.2d 812, 816 (Ala.2000) (quoting Marshall Durbin & Co. v. Jasper Utils.

2014First Baptist Church of Citronelle v. Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc., 409 So.2d 727, 729 (Ala.1981). .

1998Marshall Durbin Co. v. Jasper Utilities Bd. of the City of Jasper , 437 So.2d 1014 , 1025 (Ala. 1983); First Baptist Church v. Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. , 409 So.2d 727 , 729 (Ala. 1981).

2013R.Civ.P.,] clearly provides that when an action is brought by someone other than the real party in interest within the limitations period and the real party in interest joins or ratifies the action after the limitations period has run, the amendment or ratification relates back to the time suit was originally filed and the action need not be dismissed as time barred.’ ” 565 So.2d at 189 (quoting Hess v. Eddy, 689 F.2d 977, 980 (11th Cir.1982)).

1990The corresponding Federal rule was interpreted and applied in Hess v. Eddy , 689 F.2d 977 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1118 , 103 S.Ct. 3085 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1347 (1983).

2011Co. v. Anglen, 630 So.2d 441, 443 (Ala.1993). “ ‘ “[T]he standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to compel arbitration at the instance of either party is a de novo determination of whether the trial judge erred on a factual or legal issue to the substantial prejudice of the party seeking review.” ’ Vann v. First Cmty. Credit Corp., 834 So.2d 751, 752-53 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Roberson, 749 So.2d 441, 446 (Ala.1999) (emphasis omitted)). ‘The party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden of proving the existence of a written contract calling for arbitration an

2011Co. v. Anglen, 630 So.2d 441, 443 (Ala.1993). “ ‘ “[T]he standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to compel arbitration at the instance of either party is a de novo determination of whether the trial judge erred on a factual or legal issue to the substantial prejudice of the party seeking review.” ’ Vann v. First Cmty. Credit Corp., 834 So.2d 751, 752-53 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Roberson, 749 So.2d 441, 446 (Ala.1999) (emphasis omitted)). ‘The party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden of proving the existence of a written contract calling for arbitration an

2011Co. v. Anglen, 630 So.2d 441, 443 (Ala.1993). “ ‘ “[T]he standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to compel arbitration at the instance of either party is a de novo determination of whether the trial judge erred on a factual or legal issue to the substantial prejudice of the party seeking review.” ’ Vann v. First Cmty. Credit Corp., 834 So.2d 751, 752-53 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Roberson, 749 So.2d 441, 446 (Ala.1999) (emphasis omitted)). ‘The party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden of proving the existence of a written contract calling for arbitration an

2011Bd., 437 So.2d 1014, 1025 (Ala.1983), and Rowan v. First Bank of Boaz, 476 So.2d 44, 46 (Ala.1985)). “ ‘The party seeking certification bears the burden of showing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one requirement of Rule 23(b) have been met.’ Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group L.P., 247 F.R.D. 156, 164 (C.D.Cal.2007).

2011Co. v. Anglen, 630 So.2d 441, 443 (Ala.1993). “ ‘ “[T]he standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to compel arbitration at the instance of either party is a de novo determination of whether the trial judge erred on a factual or legal issue to the substantial prejudice of the party seeking review.” ’ Vann v. First Cmty. Credit Corp., 834 So.2d 751, 752-53 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Roberson, 749 So.2d 441, 446 (Ala.1999) (emphasis omitted)). ‘The party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden of proving the existence of a written contract calling for arbitration an

2011Co. v. Anglen, 630 So.2d 441, 443 (Ala.1993). “ ‘ “[T]he standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to compel arbitration at the instance of either party is a de novo determination of whether the trial judge erred on a factual or legal issue to the substantial prejudice of the party seeking review.” ’ Vann v. First Cmty. Credit Corp., 834 So.2d 751, 752-53 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Roberson, 749 So.2d 441, 446 (Ala.1999) (emphasis omitted)). ‘The party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden of proving the existence of a written contract calling for arbitration an

2011Co. v. Anglen, 630 So.2d 441, 443 (Ala.1993). “ ‘ “[T]he standard of review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to compel arbitration at the instance of either party is a de novo determination of whether the trial judge erred on a factual or legal issue to the substantial prejudice of the party seeking review.” ’ Vann v. First Cmty. Credit Corp., 834 So.2d 751, 752-53 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Roberson, 749 So.2d 441, 446 (Ala.1999) (emphasis omitted)). ‘The party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden of proving the existence of a written contract calling for arbitration an

2009See Fed.R.Evid. 704(a).” “An ultimate issue has been defined as the last question that must be determined by the jury.” Fitch v. State, 851 So.2d 103, 116 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), quoting Tims v. State, 711 So.2d 1118, 1125 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).

2009See Fed.R.Evid. 704(a)." "An ultimate issue has been defined as the last question that must be determined by the jury." Fitch v. State, 851 So.2d 103 , 116 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), quoting Tims v. State, 711 So.2d 1118, 1125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997).

2009See Fed.R.Evid. 704(a).” “An ultimate issue has been defined as the last question that must be determined by the jury.” Fitch v. State, 851 So.2d 103, 116 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), quoting Tims v. State, 711 So.2d 1118, 1125 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).

2009See Fed.R.Evid. 704(a)." "An ultimate issue has been defined as the last question that must be determined by the jury." Fitch v. State, 851 So.2d 103 , 116 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), quoting Tims v. State, 711 So.2d 1118, 1125 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997).

2008Co., 816 So.2d 27, 29 (Ala. 2001).

2001The committee comments to Rule 106 state: "Rule 106 constitutes a rejection of that portion of the corresponding federal rule that expands the historic doctrine of completeness to include the admission of any additional writing or recorded statement that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with an already admitted writing or recorded statement." In Ex parte Drinkard, supra, the Alabama Supreme Court recognized that "`[b]y its very terms, the doctrine of completeness relates only to matters contained in a single conversation.'" 777 *40 So.2d at 302, quoting Dawson v. State, 675

2001See Swift v. Gregory , 786 So.2d 1097 , 1099 (Ala. 2000) ("`Words used in a statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says.