Rule 23(a)(3) requires the representative's claims to be typical of the class. Typicality is satisfied where the claims arise from the same event or practice and are based on the same legal theory, even if factual circumstances differ.
Unique defenses against the representative can defeat it.
Alternative Names:
Typicality Requirement, Rule 23(a)(3)
Why it Matters?
The productive challenge is a defense unique to the representative, since a plaintiff facing a limitations bar, an arbitration agreement, or a release that other members do not face will spend the litigation on issues irrelevant to the class. Courts treat that as defeating typicality because the representative's attention diverges from the class interest. Identifying such defenses early is standard certification opposition work.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What defeats typicality?
Must factual circumstances be identical?
