IN RE | Class Action is in Session

 What is a Class Action Lawsuit?

A class action lawsuit is “any civil action filed under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more representative persons as a class action.” (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B))

The representative persons are known as “class members” defined as the persons (named or unnamed) who fall within the definition of the proposed or certified class in a class action. (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(D))

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23

“One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if: 

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, 

(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, 

(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and 

(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”

(28 USC § 23(a))

To Sue or to be Sued

Class Action lawsuits are typically Plaintiff actions. The federal law definition states “an action to be brought by”. Bringing a suit is an action typically attributed to a plaintiff implying that the federal law intended for class action lawsuits to be used as a plaintiff’s tool. 

Defendant class actions lawsuits, although rare, have been used in courts. Rule 23 states that members of a class “may be sued” authorizing this type of litigation. A defendant class action lawsuit is required to adhere fully to Rule 23 and in particular the guidance for the maintainability of the class action.

“ An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:

(1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of

(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or

(B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or

(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or

(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.” (28 USC § 23(b))

Defendant class actions lawsuits, for now, seem to be limited to relatively smaller clearly defined classes. These lawsuits tend to be best suited for securities, competition claims, and matters of constitutional law.

Read More:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/class-action/insight-defendant-class-actions-the-solution-to-suing-hundreds-of-defendants

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=66ee61ff-f73e-473e-b61e-be35b93b2c64

IN RE VLAWG | January 6th House Select Committee Public Hearings RECAPS/REVIEWS

Click read more to see all the IN RE VLAWGs recapping and reviewing the January 6th House Select Committee Public Hearings.

*Can also be found on inrevlawg.blogspot.com

IN RE | 13 Angry Justices

How I Would “Pack” the Supreme Court

Thirteen (13) Justices. One Justice from the legal community in each regional court of appeals district and one from the federal circuit. The one federal circuit justice would serve as chief justice.

As one Justice leaves, they could only be replaced by someone from the vacant district.

In this theoretical model, the president still picks, but the pool is limited by circuit (and potentially culture contained in the circuit.)

My theory, the most liberal nominee from the 4th circuit is likely more conservative than the most liberal person from the 9th Circuit. Contrariwise, the most conservative person from the 9th circuit court of appeals is likely to still be more liberal than the most conservative person from the 4th circuit court of appeals.

IN RE VLAWG | Stranger Claims | Blac Chyna v. Robert Kardashian et. al.

Does Blac Chyna have a case? Is she suing the right people? What exactly is False Light?

IN RE | How To Get Away With Defamation

 

What is Defamation?

The claim of defamation is the publication of a false statement of fact to a third party that tends to harm reputation. Some jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation (libel) and fixed medium defamation (slander).

To remedy defamation courts can impose an injunction to end the behavior (not preferred) or impose monetary damages as compensation for the injury caused.

In summation, a party has to prove:

• False statement of fact (that the statement was a provable fact, not a subjective opinion)

• Published to a 3rd party

• Injury, demonstration of harm to reputation

Defamation Per Se

When the published statement of fact fits into one of these categories, then the injury (harm to reputation) is inferred. These are:

IN RE VLAWG | Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing for Judge Katanji Brown Jackson RECAPS and REVIEWS

Click read more to see all the IN RE VLAWGs recapping and reviewing the confirmation of Justice Katanji Brown Jackson.

*Can also be found on inrevlawg.blogspot.com

IN RE | Russia v. Ukraine (RAW-WAR)

 (This post is semi-edited and on-going. Basically a rant.) 

War always affects the common people, the engine of society. Always the people that didn’t make the policies that created the conditions that lead to War. The Ukrainian-Russian War creates an abstract idea that all Ukrainians agreed to fight all Russians. Statements and Generals made decisions, and common citizens died. Soldiers following orders died. 

The entire War is horrific but the image of evacuating the children’s hospital was particularly haunting for me. I have the privilege of being on the other side of the world and viewing a screen. As haunting as the images are, I cannot begin to imagine the in person experience.

IN RE | All My Exes Lost Power in Texas

Intrastate v. Interstate

The state of Texas has an intrastate utility system. Intrastate means completely within the state. Interstate, comparable to a highway, means between multiple states. 

Federal v. State Regulations

“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

The federal legislature is given the power to regulation commerce that crosses state lines; interstate commerce. Intrastate commerce, that happens exclusively within a state, can be still subject to state regulation. The absence of federal regulation, does not automatically mean there is an absence of ALL regulation.

IN RE | Due Process

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. U.S. Const. Amend. V

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1

The fifth amendment requires the Federal Government to apply due process for federal deprivations. The fourteenth amendment provides that states, by incorporation, apply due process also for state deprivations.

IN RE | Impeachment Subsequent

Can a former United States President be convicted for high crimes and misdemeanors, in an impeachment trial, after the presidential term has naturally expired and the president has left office?

Are there assertions of actions that arise to a claim of high crimes and misdemeanors?

Whether or not a person will be successful is not the same as whether or not a person has a claim. ‘I was hit’ is an assertion of actions that lead to the claim of battery. This is enough for a claim. Whether or not a battery happened is to be determined by the finder of fact; the Jury or the Judge and in the situation at bar, the Senate. 

The former president's actions taken on January 6th, 2021 that preceded the event against the capital are enough to assert a claim of incitement of insurrection. Whether or not the finder of will make the determination is an issue for trial. 

Did the actions in question happen while the president was in office?