California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc., 174 Cal.Rptr. 515, 29 Cal.3d 462, 629 P.2d 23 (Cal. 1981):
The question that concerned the trial court was whether the plaintiffs had proved the element of adequate representation. In Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra, 391 F.2d at p. 562, the federal court discussed the several factors involved in the resolution of such an issue. "To be sure, an essential concomitant of adequate representation is that the party's attorney be qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation. Additionally, it is necessary to eliminate so far as possible the likelihood that the litigants are involved in a collusive [29 Cal.3d 479] suit or that plaintiff has interests antagonistic to those of the remainder of the class."
There is no issue of collusion here since none was raised. Plaintiffs established that 242 lot owners seek to represent the class and that their attorneys have substantial experience in class action litigation. Since the plaintiffs need not show that "every member of the class (is) enthusiastic about the maintenance of the lawsuit" (Shulman v. Ritzenberg, supra, 47 F.R.D. at p. 207 (fn. omitted)), they have met their burden in this regard. Further, no present and substantial conflict between the interests of the absent class members and the named plaintiffs was shown.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.