Class Action Reform

Problem

Today, some class actions are meritless cases in which thousands, or millions, of plaintiffs with unique injuries and grievances are granted class status, often without the knowledge of class members.  In many of these cases, plaintiffs’ counsel negotiate settlements with the defendants early on that allow the defendants to avoid costly litigation, and rewards the plaintiffs’ counsel with millions in legal fees.  Meanwhile, the class members, who play no role in the negotiation process, and who often have no idea that plaintiffs’ lawyers are advancing a lawsuit on their behalf, often receive pennies or nearly-worthless coupons. 

90% of members in class action settlements receive no benefits.

ATRA's Position:

ATRA supports state legislation that allows only plaintiffs from the forum state who have suffered the same injury with similar claims against similar defendants to be certified as a class. ATRA also supports legislation that allows the interlocutory (immediate) appeal of class action certification orders. 

Learn More:


Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar’s argument against meaningful class action certification standards — that flexible standards make the process more efficient by incorporating all like claims, and more fair by ensuring representation for plaintiffs with claims that would not otherwise be profitable for attorneys — fails to address the hardship imposed by abuse of the device on class members, (who receive pennies, while their lawyers receive millions), defendants, (who are often forced to settle unmeritorious lawsuits), and consumers, (who ultimately bear the burden of class actions through increased costs). 

The personal injury bar’s argument against the interlocutory appeal of class action certification orders — that such orders are appealable at the end of a case — fails to take into account the strong incentive that defendants have to settle an unmeritorious case once the class is certified in order to save unnecessary litigation costs.

Class Action Reform: S.B. 704 (2011)

Oklahoma|2011

Adopts Iqbal/Twombly language and adds a new requirement for class

[…]

Adopts Iqbal/Twombly language and adds a new requirement for class action lawsuits.  Provides that an action may be maintained as a class action if the petition contains factual allegations sufficient to demonstrate a plausible claim for relief.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Class Action Reform: H.B. 1013 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

Adopted the expanded federal rule as a foundation for class

[…]

Adopted the expanded federal rule as a foundation for class actions.  Includes specific procedures and guides the court must follow in appointing an attorney to represent the class.  Requires specific findings that must be included in an order certifying a class.  Requires more specific information be included in the notice provided to potential class members if a class is certified.  Calls for more specific court oversight of the case, particularly regarding dismissals and settlements.  Limits non-resident membership in state class actions and allows the court to stay, transfer or dismiss a case if it should be heard in another court


[hide]

Unchallenged

Class Action Reform: S.B. 16 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

Defines who can be a member of a class and set

[…]

Defines who can be a member of a class and set a procedure for the court to determine class attorneys and fees to be paid.  Allows the court to appoint an independent attorney to represent the class in any dispute over attorneys’ fees.  Provides that in coupon settlements, the attorney shall receive fee in coupons.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Class Action Reform- S.B. 704 (2011)

Oklahoma|2011

Adopts Iqbal/Twombly language and adds a new requirement for class

[…]

Adopts Iqbal/Twombly language and adds a new requirement for class action lawsuits.  Provides that an action may be maintained as a class action if the petition contains factual allegations sufficient to demonstrate a plausible claim for relief.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Class Action Reform: HB 1603 (2009).

Oklahoma|2009

Defines who can be a member of a class and

[…]

Defines who can be a member of a class and set a procedure for the court to determine class attorneys and fees to be paid.  Allows the court to appoint an independent attorney to represent the class in any dispute over attorneys fees.  Provides that in coupon settlements, the attorney shall receive fee in coupons.


[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

Held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, June 2013.