predominance requirement in Massachusetts

2016The predominance requirement is met by showing that there is a “sufficient constellation of common issues [that] bind class members together.” Weld, 434 Mass. at 92 (alteration in original), quoting Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 296 (1st Cir. 2000).

2006Notably, the predominance requirement is satisfied by a “sufficient constellation of common issues [that] bind class members together.” Weld, 434 Mass. at 92 , paraphrasing in parenthetical Waste Mgt Holdings Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 296 (1st Cir. 2000).

2016See Mass.R.Civ.P. 23(b) and Salvas, 452 Mass. at 363 (“The predominance test expressly directs the court to make a comparison between the common and individual questions involved in order to reach a determination of such predominance of common questions in a class action context”) (citation omitted).

2014See also Salvas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 452 Mass. at 363 (“The predominance test expressly directs the court to make a comparison between the common and individual questions involved in order to reach a determination of such predominance of common questions in a class action context”) (citation omitted).

2016The predominance requirement is met by showing that there is a “sufficient constellation of common issues [that] bind class members together.” Weld, 434 Mass. at 92 (alteration in original), quoting Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 296 (1st Cir. 2000).

2006Notably, the predominance requirement is satisfied by a “sufficient constellation of common issues [that] bind class members together.” Weld, 434 Mass. at 92 , paraphrasing in parenthetical Waste Mgt Holdings Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 296 (1st Cir. 2000).

2008See Smilow v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys., Inc., 323 F.3d 32, 39 (1st Cir. 2003) (“Even in the unlikely event that individual waiver determinations prove necessary, the proposed class may still satisfy the predominance requirement. . . .

2006See Weld, 434 Mass. at 87 (“The plaintiffs bear the burden of providing information sufficient to enable the motion judge to form a reasonable judgment that the class meets the requirements of rule 23; they do not bear the burden of producing evidence sufficient to prove that the requirements have been met” (emphasis added)); see also Smilow v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Sys., 323 F.3d 32, 40 (1st Cir. 2003) (“Where . . . common questions predominate regarding liability, then courts generally find the predominance requirement to be satisfied even if individual damages issues remain”).

2016There the Supreme Court held that, to meet the predominance requirement, the plaintiffs had to show individual injuries that were “capable of proof at trial through evidence that [was] common to the class rather than individual to its members.” 1 Id. at 1430 (alteration in original), quoting Behrend v. Comcast Corp., 264 F.R.D. 150, 154 (ED.Pa. 2010).

2006A trial judge’s discretion is “particularly extensive when dealing with the ‘superiority’ requirement of rule 23(b).” Berry v. Town of Danvers, 34 Mass.App.Ct. 507, 515 , citing Fletcher v. Cape Cod Gas Co., 394 Mass. 595, 601 (1985).