About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

38 Ohio St. L.J. 459 (1977)
Defendant Class Actions

handle is hein.journals/ohslj38 and id is 469 raw text is: OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL Volume 38, Number 3, 1977 Defendant Class Actions BARRY M. WOLFSON* I. INTRODUCTION In a 1975 California case, Eskaton v. Driver,1 a group of hos- pitals brought claims against several hundred participants in a bank- rupt health maintenance organization by suing five participants both individually and as representatives of all participants who had used the hospitals' facilities. Eskaton was a defendant class action, a pro- cedural device that allows one who has a common grievance against a multitude of persons to resolve the whole dispute by suing only a few members of the class. If the chosen few represent the class ade- quately, all class members are bound by the resolution of the common issues.2 Plaintiff begins the action by selecting representatives from among the class members and serving them with process in the same fashion that parties defendant would be served in a nonclass suit. The mechan- ics of the subsequent possible steps-class certification, notice to absen- tees, exclusion of, or intervention by absentees, litigation of common issues, settlement proposal and approval-are virtually the same for defendant and plaintiff class actions. The significant difference comes at the very end of the proceedings. Provided individual issues were not left to be resolved outside the class proceeding, a judgment in favor of a plaintiff class is enforceable against the defendants just as in a nonclass suit. A judgment against a defendant class, however, is no more than a declaration of rights or duties on common issues.3 Plaintiffs have found defendant class actions increasingly useful in recent years4-useful in prosecuting claims that otherwise would * Member, Arizona and Illinois Bars. Mr. Wolfson is associated with the firm of O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover, Killingsworth & Beshears, Phoenix, Arizona. 1. Civil No. 257-471 (Sacramento County, Calif. Super. Ct. Oct. 10. 1975). 2. See notes 17-36 infra and accompanying text. 3. See notes 47-48 infra and accompanying text. When monetary relief is sought, plaintiff must later bring collateral suits against the various defendants individually to execute on the judgments. 4. See, e.g., the following defendant class actions: Trainor v. Hernandez, 97 S. Ct. 1911. (1977); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975); Kline v. Coldwell, Banker & Co.. 508 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 (1975); Appleton Elec. Co. v. Advance-United Expressays. 494 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1974); Callahan v. Wallace, 466 F.2d 59 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Trucking Employers, Inc., 72 F.R.D. 101 (D.D.C. 1976); Hopson v. Schilling, 418 F. Supp. 1223 (N.D. Ind. 1976); Thompson v. Board of Educ., 71 F.R.D. 398 (W.D. Mich. 1976); Bradford Trust Co. v- Wright, 70 F.R.D. 323 (E.D.N.Y. 1976); Redhail v. ZablockL 418 F. Supp. 1061 (E.D. Wis. 1976); Tucker v. City Bd. of Comm'rs, 410 F. Supp. 494 (M.D. Ala. 1976): United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist., 71 F.R.D. 10 (D. Nev. 1975); Mudd v. Busse, 68 F.R.D. 522

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most