首页> 外文OA文献 >U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief of Civil Procedure Professors in Support of Respondents, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277
【2h】

U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief of Civil Procedure Professors in Support of Respondents, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277

机译:美国最高法院amicus支持受访者的民事诉讼教授简报,Wal-mart stores,Inc。诉Dukes,第10-277号

摘要

The class action device is essential to a well-functioning system of justice because of its ability to balance the values of access to the courts and efficient adjudication of disputes. This was the vision of the drafters of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This Court can and should interpret Rule 23u27s text in a way that vindicates these overarching goals.Particularly in an adjudicative class action, the certification motion needs to be understood as a preliminary step that is complimented by motions to dismiss and summary judgment motions. The aim of class certification is not to screen out suits that fail even to allege a claim for relief (that is for motions to dismiss), nor to issue dispositive rulings on the merits (that is the purpose of summary judgment or trial). Instead, it is to determine whether the purposes of the class action rule would be served by proceeding with a collective litigation.The district court case did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the proposed class met the requirements of Rule 23(a). In fact, the court’s attention to the detailed pleadings and the extensive evidence gathered by the parties in assessing whether the named plaintiffs’ claims shared common questions of law or fact with claims of absent class members showed a level of rigorous evaluation that went beyond the 23(a) threshold. Classification of the class under 23(b)(2) was also appropriate under the Federal Rules. Petitioner’s contrary arguments ignore the text, purpose and history of Rule 23.
机译:集体诉讼设备对运作良好的司法系统至关重要,因为它具有平衡诉诸法院的价值和有效裁决纠纷的能力。这是《联邦民事诉讼规则》 23的起草者的愿景。法院可以并且应该以证明这些首要目标的方式来解释《规则》第23条的案文。尤其是在裁决性集体诉讼中,证明动议应理解为撤消和总结判决动议的补充,是一个初步步骤。集体认证的目的不是要筛选出即使未能提出救济要求的诉讼(也就是提出撤职的动议),也不是要根据案情做出决定性裁定(即即决判决或审判的目的)。取而代之的是,通过集体诉讼来确定集体诉讼规则的目的是否得到满足。地区法院的案件并没有滥用其自由裁量权,认为结论是拟议的集体符合规则23(a)的要求。实际上,法院对当事方在评估指定原告的主张是否与法律或事实共同的法律问题或缺席集体成员的主张具有共同的法律或事实问题时所收集的详细诉求和广泛证据的重视程度超出了23 (a)门槛。根据《联邦规则》,根据23(b)(2)对类别进行分类也是适当的。呈请人的相反论点无视规则23的文本,目的和历史。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号