commonality requirement in New Jersey

2015Plaintiffs also urge “the trial court’s unsolicited elimination of the putative class denied ... the ‘main thrust of the litigation’ because the cost of litigating each claim individually outweighs the amount of the claim.” See Riley, supra, 61 N.J. at 221 , 294 A.2d 7 .

2015Plaintiffs also urge “the trial court’s unsolicited elimination of the putative class denied ... the ‘main thrust of the litigation’ because the cost of litigating each claim individually outweighs the amount of the claim.” See Riley, supra, 61 N.J. at 221 , 294 A.2d 7 .

2007Iliadis, supra, 387 N.J.Super. at 416-17 , 904 A. 2d 736 .

2007Iliadis, supra, 387 N.J.Super. at 416-17 , 904 A. 2d 736 .

2007Although the commonality requirement may be satisfied by a single shared experience, the predominance inquiry is far more demanding. [(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).] The trial judge found that “[tjhere are 40 Wal-Mart stores and nine Sam’s Club stores in New Jersey” and that, “[i]n the WalMart stores, there are 90 different hourly employee classifications whüe, in the Sam’s Club stores, there are 100 different hourly employee classifications.” Taking issue with the obviously erroneous statistical and anecdotal proofs advanced by plaintiffs, she explained that those proofs do

2007Although the commonality requirement may be satisfied by a single shared experience, the predominance inquiry is far more demanding. [(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).] The trial judge found that “[tjhere are 40 Wal-Mart stores and nine Sam’s Club stores in New Jersey” and that, “[i]n the WalMart stores, there are 90 different hourly employee classifications whüe, in the Sam’s Club stores, there are 100 different hourly employee classifications.” Taking issue with the obviously erroneous statistical and anecdotal proofs advanced by plaintiffs, she explained that those proofs do

2005Recognizing the Supreme Court's determination in PT & L, supra, 77 N.J. at 27 , 389 A. 2d 448 , that even if the use in question is found in only a small percentage of similar main uses, it "may still be found to be `customary,'" and the fact that such review mandates a broader point of geographical reference than a single town, Colts Run Civic Ass'n, supra, 315 N.J.Super. at 252 , 717 A. 2d 456 , there simply is no evidence in this record of significant commonality between an employee residence and a non-residential use.

2005Recognizing the Supreme Court's determination in PT & L, supra, 77 N.J. at 27 , 389 A. 2d 448 , that even if the use in question is found in only a small percentage of similar main uses, it "may still be found to be `customary,'" and the fact that such review mandates a broader point of geographical reference than a single town, Colts Run Civic Ass'n, supra, 315 N.J.Super. at 252 , 717 A. 2d 456 , there simply is no evidence in this record of significant commonality between an employee residence and a non-residential use.

2005Recognizing the Supreme Court's determination in PT & L, supra, 77 N.J. at 27 , 389 A. 2d 448 , that even if the use in question is found in only a small percentage of similar main uses, it "may still be found to be `customary,'" and the fact that such review mandates a broader point of geographical reference than a single town, Colts Run Civic Ass'n, supra, 315 N.J.Super. at 252 , 717 A. 2d 456 , there simply is no evidence in this record of significant commonality between an employee residence and a non-residential use.

2005Recognizing the Supreme Court's determination in PT & L, supra, 77 N.J. at 27 , 389 A. 2d 448 , that even if the use in question is found in only a small percentage of similar main uses, it "may still be found to be `customary,'" and the fact that such review mandates a broader point of geographical reference than a single town, Colts Run Civic Ass'n, supra, 315 N.J.Super. at 252 , 717 A. 2d 456 , there simply is no evidence in this record of significant commonality between an employee residence and a non-residential use.

2004As a correlative to this, “[i]t is not necessary that all questions of fact or law raised be common.” (emphasis added.) Indeed, “a single common question is sufficient.” Delgozzo, supra, 266 N.J.Super. at 185 , 628 A.2d 1080 (iquoting In re Asbestos School Litigation, 104 F.R.D. 422, 429 (E.D.Pa.1984), ajfd in part and rac’d in part sub nom., 789 F.2d 996 (3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 852 , 107 S.Ct. 182 , 93 L.Ed.2d 117 (1986)).

2004Predominance The predominance requirement of R. 4:32-l(b)(3) “is more demanding than the commonality requirement.” Muise v. GPU, Inc., 371 N.J.Super. 13, 31 , 851 A.2d 799 (App.Div.2004); In re LifeUSA supra, 242 F.3d at 144 .

2004Predominance The predominance requirement of R. 4:32-l(b)(3) “is more demanding than the commonality requirement.” Muise v. GPU, Inc., 371 N.J.Super. 13, 31 , 851 A.2d 799 (App.Div.2004); In re LifeUSA supra, 242 F.3d at 144 .

2004As a correlative to this, “[i]t is not necessary that all questions of fact or law raised be common.” (emphasis added.) Indeed, “a single common question is sufficient.” Delgozzo, supra, 266 N.J.Super. at 185 , 628 A.2d 1080 (iquoting In re Asbestos School Litigation, 104 F.R.D. 422, 429 (E.D.Pa.1984), ajfd in part and rac’d in part sub nom., 789 F.2d 996 (3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 852 , 107 S.Ct. 182 , 93 L.Ed.2d 117 (1986)).

2004As a correlative to this, “[i]t is not necessary that all questions of fact or law raised be common.” (emphasis added.) Indeed, “a single common question is sufficient.” Delgozzo, supra, 266 N.J.Super. at 185 , 628 A.2d 1080 (iquoting In re Asbestos School Litigation, 104 F.R.D. 422, 429 (E.D.Pa.1984), ajfd in part and rac’d in part sub nom., 789 F.2d 996 (3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 852 , 107 S.Ct. 182 , 93 L.Ed.2d 117 (1986)).

2004See, e.g., Liberty, supra, 149 F.R.D. at 76 (“highly specific factual and legal determinations are not consistent with the commonality requirement of a class action and, indeed, undercut the purpose of the class action procedure”); Saldana, supra, 252 N.J.Super. at 197 , 599 A.2d 582 (“commonality becomes obscured when the probable unique issues of liability, causation and damages in each case are considered, requiring individualized treatment at trial”).

2004See, e.g., Liberty, supra, 149 F.R.D. at 76 (“highly specific factual and legal determinations are not consistent with the commonality requirement of a class action and, indeed, undercut the purpose of the class action procedure”); Saldana, supra, 252 N.J.Super. at 197 , 599 A.2d 582 (“commonality becomes obscured when the probable unique issues of liability, causation and damages in each case are considered, requiring individualized treatment at trial”).

2004As a correlative to this, “[i]t is not necessary that all questions of fact or law raised be common.” (emphasis added.) Indeed, “a single common question is sufficient.” Delgozzo, supra, 266 N.J.Super. at 185 , 628 A.2d 1080 (iquoting In re Asbestos School Litigation, 104 F.R.D. 422, 429 (E.D.Pa.1984), ajfd in part and rac’d in part sub nom., 789 F.2d 996 (3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 852 , 107 S.Ct. 182 , 93 L.Ed.2d 117 (1986)).

2004As a correlative to this, “[i]t is not necessary that all questions of fact or law raised be common.” (emphasis added.) Indeed, “a single common question is sufficient.” Delgozzo, supra, 266 N.J.Super. at 185 , 628 A.2d 1080 (iquoting In re Asbestos School Litigation, 104 F.R.D. 422, 429 (E.D.Pa.1984), ajfd in part and rac’d in part sub nom., 789 F.2d 996 (3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 852 , 107 S.Ct. 182 , 93 L.Ed.2d 117 (1986)).

2004As a correlative to this, “[i]t is not necessary that all questions of fact or law raised be common.” (emphasis added.) Indeed, “a single common question is sufficient.” Delgozzo, supra, 266 N.J.Super. at 185 , 628 A.2d 1080 (iquoting In re Asbestos School Litigation, 104 F.R.D. 422, 429 (E.D.Pa.1984), ajfd in part and rac’d in part sub nom., 789 F.2d 996 (3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 852 , 107 S.Ct. 182 , 93 L.Ed.2d 117 (1986)).

2002"The commonality requirement will be satisfied if the named plaintiffs share at least one question of fact or law with the grievances of the prospective class." Ibid.