typicality requirement in Alabama

2008P. This Court has held that “ ‘ “[t]he essence of the typicality requirement is that the relationship between the injury to the class representatives and the conduct affecting the entire class of plaintiffs must be sufficient for the court to properly attribute a collective nature to the challenged conduct.” ’ ” Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., v. Heilman, 876 So.2d 1111, 1117 (Ala.2003) (quoting Atlanta Cas.

2007Compare Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Heilman, 876 So.2d 1111, 1118 (Ala.2003)(holding that the circumstances under which the named class representatives contracted with the rental company were not typical of the purported class of rental customers because a significant percentage of the rental customers were corporations and corporate travelers who either did not sign rental documents or whose contracts did not call for the fees paid by the named class representatives.

2009See Jenkins, supra. Therefore, we hold that McFadden satisfied the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a).

1996Id.

2007The supreme court held that “variations in the degree of privity the separate class members had with the defendants” did not defeat the typicality requirement. 779 So.2d at 1180 . “ ‘Where, as here, “the party seeking certification alleges that the same unlawful conduct was directed at the class representatives and the class itself, the typicality requirement is usually met irrespective of the varying fact patterns which underlie individual claims.” See Appleyard v. Wallace, 754 F.2d 955, 958 (11th Cir.1985).

2007The supreme court held that "variations in the degree of privity the separate class members had with the defendants" did not defeat the typicality requirement. 779 So.2d at 1180 . "`Where, as here, "the party seeking certification alleges that the same unlawful conduct was directed at the class representatives and the class itself, the typicality requirement is usually met irrespective of the varying fact patterns which underlie individual claims. " See Appleyard v. Wallace, 754 F.2d 955, 958 (11th Cir.1985).

2008Co. v. Russell, 798 So.2d at 668 , quoting in turn Warehouse Home Furnishing Distnbs., Inc. v. Whitson, 709 So.2d 1144, 1149 (Ala.1997)).

2007See Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir.1984)(stating that “[d]iffer-ences in the amount of damages between the class representative and other class members does not affect typicality”).

2007See Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir.1984)(stating that "[d]ifferences in the amount of damages between the class representative and other class members does not affect typicality").

2007The Alabama Supreme Court held that the typicality requirement was “satisfied by a common question — whether the setoff provision of GEICO’s contract with its policyholders violates Alabama law.” 729 So.2d at 308-09.

2007The Alabama Supreme Court held that the typicality requirement was "satisfied by a common question—whether the setoff provision of GEICO's contract with its policyholders violates Alabama law." 729 So.2d at 308-09.

2003See La Mar, supra (recognizing that when the plaintiffs' injuries are the result of a conspiracy or a concerted scheme among the defendants, each member of the plaintiff class need not have a cause of action against every defendant before a defendant class can be certified).

2000See also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 701 , 99 S.Ct. 2545 , 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979), in which the Supreme Court stated that class relief is "peculiarly appropriate" when the "issues involved are common to the class as a whole" and when they "turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class." "The typicality requirement is said to limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiffs claims." General Tel.

2000See also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 701 , 99 S.Ct. 2545 , 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979), in which the Supreme Court stated that class relief is "peculiarly appropriate" when the "issues involved are common to the class as a whole" and when they "turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class." "The typicality requirement is said to limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiffs claims." General Tel.