Talk:Class action
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The criticism against class action section has clearly degenerated into a back and forth between pro and con factions. There's little actual information there.
Contents |
[edit] Propaganda
Just happened across this phrase: 'This federal law was passed, in part, to “assure fair and prompt recoveries of legitimate claims.” Section 2(b)(1).'
Don't know enough about it to edit the main page, but this phrase looks like propaganda. Regardless of whether the bill contains this phrase, the primary agenda of the bill's supporters was focused around the defendants in class-action suits -- not the class of little guys seeking redress.
Appreciate it if someone who knew more about it would confirm and level if slanted.
[edit] Criticism section
Will the apologists for the lawyers please stay out of the criticism section. This section is terribly written. There are some very strong compelling complaints many in society have against class action lawsuits.
I made some changes to this section. These changes could have been more artfully written as they were done rather quickly, but they certainly improved the argument. This section was so badly done previously it was very easy to sharpen the argument. Naturally one of the apologists for the lawyers simply reverted with no comment. Apparently the apologists for the lawyers dont want a solid criticism to see the light.
- If "lawyers get millions of dollars and the class member gets perhaps a dollar off coupon" isn't NPOV, then I don't know what is. And please sign your comments; it's hard to take anything you write seriously if you can't follow the simple suggestions on your user talk page. b0at 23:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"In these cases, the lawyers get millions of dollars and the class member gets perhaps a dollar off coupon. For example, Blockbusters was sued and everyone recieved a silly coupon and probably had to pay more for the videos to cover the legal expense, and the lawyers recieved millions of dollars." This was the full quote which used an example where the lawyers got millions of dollars and the class members got a dollar off coupon or something similar. The fed ex case was also mentioned. THere are numerous other cases. I just read the NPOV section. Your actions are against the rules. The criticism section must be presented as clearly, forcefully and soundly as possible. Your efforts at weakening the argument are against the rules. You have your own section to present your argument. It is against the rules for you to weaken the other side's argument. LegalEagle1798 03:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I used a rhetorical device in the following which you deleted which is probably against the rules. I Would like apologist's response before I fix it up and post it to the article.
"The court must approve any settlement and class members and their attorneys have the right to argue against a settlement as being too low, which explains why courts approved the fedex settlement and the blockbusters settlement and the ADM settlement and all the other silly settlements where the lawyers made millions and the class members basically recieved nothing. The ADM case is especially interesting because the lawyers sued the company on behalf of the shareholders which tanked the stock. The shareholders were hurt and the lawyers made millions and why did the court approve this settlement?" LegalEagle1798 04:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Totally Off The Road! ( NO EXPERT TALK for WIKIPEDIA [This Internet ENDEAVOUR is for COMMON PEOPLE])
The whole article needs a rewrite in easy to understand language.
Jan Girke 20:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] International law
I have expanded the article to introduce a more global perspective, by adding brief discussions of the law of various countries. Further information/resources would be a good project for Wiki Law project, and I will bring it up there.jgwlaw 22:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. I am just trying to get my head around what a "class action" actually is and how they might work. As far as I can see they are quite like group litigation orders, though they are fairly rare in England and Wales, but I'm not sure if they are exactly the same. A GLO is a collection of claims rather than a single claim - am I right in thinking that a "class action" is a single action? If so, it sounds a bit more like a representative claim - but again I'm not really sure. What I am trying to get my head around, is what are the distinctive features of a class action as against any other claim. Perhaps you could clarify the law a bit on this in the US, then I can have a go at understanding what is being said here and say what happens in England and Wales. Francis Davey 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is a single class, usually with multiple plaintiffs, with a common claim.
What was written in the article on the U.S. is pretty accurate, although it needs a little cleanup:
1. A representative class files suit. 2. The plaintiff brings a motion to have the class certified (an assessment of the factors below) 3. The court will examine the class attributes and the ability of the firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs,the court may, as due process requires, have notices sent direct notice, published, or broadcast to the public, in any place where the class members can be found constructive notice.
4. THe notice gives the class members the opportunity to opt out of the class (enabling an individual to file his own case) 5. In federal civil procedure law, which has generally been accepted by most states, the class action must have certain definite characteristics:
- (1) the class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical,
- (2) there must be legal or factual claims in common
- (3) the claims or defences must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants, and
- (4) the representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class.
Feel free to email me if you want more infomation. I can give you a rundown on class actions.jgwlaw 04:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
