class certification hearing in Pennsylvania

2010Pa.R.C.P. 1702; see Pa.R.C.P. 1708 and 1709. ¶ 13 “At a class certification hearing, the burden of proof lies with the proponent; however, since the hearing is akin to a preliminary hearing, it is not a heavy burden.” Debbs, 810 A.2d at 153 .

2010“The proponent need only present evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case from which the court can conclude that the five class certification requirements are met.” Id. at 153-54 .

2007See also: Baldassari, supra, 808 A.2d at 189-190 . *510 ¶ 9 As noted above, the trial court here certified the following parties as the class: All individuals and entities who, with respect to a request or subpoena for medical records or charts of health care provider or employee of any health care provider licensed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, were billed for or paid to one or both of the defendants either or each of the following: (1) a charge for copies of records greater than the amounts prescribed by the Secretary of Health under the Medical Records Act (“MRA”), 42

2007See also: Baldassari, supra, 808 A.2d at 189-190 . *510 ¶ 9 As noted above, the trial court here certified the following parties as the class: All individuals and entities who, with respect to a request or subpoena for medical records or charts of health care provider or employee of any health care provider licensed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, were billed for or paid to one or both of the defendants either or each of the following: (1) a charge for copies of records greater than the amounts prescribed by the Secretary of Health under the Medical Records Act (“MRA”), 42

2003Pa.R.C.P. 1706; Cavanaugh v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 364 Pa. Super. 437 , 528 A.2d 236 (1987); D’Amelio v. Blue Cross of Lehigh Valley, 347 Pa. Super. 441 , 500 A.2d 1137 (1985).

2003Pa.R.C.P. 1706; Cavanaugh v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 364 Pa. Super. 437 , 528 A.2d 236 (1987); D’Amelio v. Blue Cross of Lehigh Valley, 347 Pa. Super. 441 , 500 A.2d 1137 (1985).

2003Pa.R.C.P. 1706; Cavanaugh v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 364 Pa. Super. 437 , 528 A.2d 236 (1987); D’Amelio v. Blue Cross of Lehigh Valley, 347 Pa. Super. 441 , 500 A.2d 1137 (1985).

1990Similarly, in Cavanaugh v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel, supra, this Court held that the trial court had abused its discretion in scheduling a class certification hearing, sua sponte, less than five months after the filing of a complicated class action suit, despite the fact that the plaintiff was still pursuing timely discovery on the very issue to be decided in the certification hearing. 528 A.2d at 240 .

2023Predominance favors “a class consisting of members for whom most essential elements of its cause or causes of action may be proven through simultaneous class-wide evidence.” Samuel-Bassett, 34 A.3d at 23 .

2002Co., 241 Pa.Super. 192 , 360 A.2d 681 (1976) (class action rules enable assertion of claims that would otherwise not be litigated). ¶ 11 At a class certification hearing, the burden of proof lies with the proponent but, this being a preliminary hearing, it is not a heavy burden.

2002Co., 241 Pa.Super. 192 , 360 A.2d 681 (1976) (class action rules enable assertion of claims that would otherwise not be litigated). ¶ 11 At a class certification hearing, the burden of proof lies with the proponent but, this being a preliminary hearing, it is not a heavy burden.

1989Ray McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir.1981)). 14 A well-pleaded class action allegation, such as numerosity, if admitted by the opponent, as is the case here, may be considered as evidence at the class certification hearing. 15 Once a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the opponent to come forward with contrary evidence, and absent such, would satisfy the class proponent’s burden.