Class action litigation, a thicket of procedural niceties, arcane nuances, occasional unholy alliances, melanges of statutory and substantive laws, and a perennial magnet for controversy, has its own heartbeat. In our Sept. 10, 2007 column, “‘Monkey Business’ in the Class Action ‘Jungle’,”1 we reported on unwholesome developments accompanying lawyer-driven efforts to whip up class action lawsuits whenever some corporation may have slipped, tripped or erred in some manner. And in earlier articles focusing on class action imbroglios,2 we reported on the requirements for class action treatment, the controversy as to whether class actions are good or bad (e.g., the device has been hailed as the “great equalizer” and denounced as an “engine of destruction”), the race to the courthouse by competing attorneys, and vices, flaws and dangers in not applying tight standards.
Despite incisive reevaluation by Judge Richard A. Posner in the famous Rhone-Poulenc case3 as to the wisdom of placing all claimants’ eggs in one super-litigation basket or Judge Frank Easterbrook’s analysis in the Bridgestone/Firestone tire litigation4 regarding inadvisability of certain national, mass products liability class actions, this genre of litigation continues to grow. Enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005, intended to enhance removal of certain class actions from state to federal court and to expedite appeals from class certification decisions, has not diminished the feeding frenzy. Although CAFA has impacted attempts to file national mass tort suits in state venues “friendly” to plaintiffs’ class lawyers, these specialists have adjusted well by vigorously pursuing more statewide classes and teaming up or coordinating with lawyers in other states pursuing the same kinds of claims.
