Commonality

Commonality

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires common questions. Under Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the question must generate a common answer capable of resolving an issue central to each claim in one stroke, rather than merely raising a shared topic.

A single common question can satisfy the requirement.

Alternative Names:

Commonality Requirement, Rule 23(a)(2)

Why it Matters?

Dukes converted commonality from a formality into a substantive requirement by demanding a common answer rather than a common question. That matters most where the challenged conduct was decentralized, since a policy of granting local discretion produces different answers for each decision-maker. Identifying whether a uniform policy or practice actually existed is the threshold inquiry, and its absence defeats certification regardless of how many claimants share a grievance.

Frequently Confused with

Related terms

Frequently asked questions

What did Dukes change?

What did Dukes change?

It required that a common question generate a common answer capable of resolving a central issue in one stroke, rather than merely raising a shared topic.

Does one common question suffice?

Does one common question suffice?

Yes for commonality, though Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes must additionally satisfy the more demanding predominance requirement.