Tagged: Joinder

Third Circuit Sets Framework for Numerosity Inquiry and Lists Factors to Consider When Determining “Whether Joinder would be Impracticable” Under Rule 23(a)(1)

One of the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23(a) is that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,” which is commonly referred to as the “numerosity” requirement. Notably, Rule 23(a)(1) is “conspicuously devoid of any numerical minimum required for class certification.” For the first time, the Third Circuit has “provide[d] a framework for district courts to apply when conducting their numerosity analyses” in a recent precedential opinion. Defendants opposing class certification must be aware of this framework, particularly since numerosity is an often overlooked prerequisite yet may provide ample grounds for defeating certification in certain actions.

Norman IP v. Lexmark: Post AIA Joinder and the Rule 42 Trump Card

In Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., a recent Eastern District of Texas decision, Chief District Judge Leonard Davis provided guidance on the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 (“Rule 20”) joinder and Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (“Rule 42”) consolidation in patent infringement cases post-enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Norman IP brought suit against Lexmark and others on September 15, 2011, one day before the AIA was signed into law. Norman IP later added an additional 23 defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper joinder or to sever, and Norman IP alternatively requested that any severed cases be consolidated under Rule 42. The Court granted defendants’ motion to sever and issued an order consolidating the cases for pretrial issues excluding venue.

One-E-Way Inc. v. Plantronics Inc.: Central District of California Court Finds Improper Joinder of Defendants

In a recent order, a judge in the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that the defendants were misjoined because even though “some of the products incorporate the same wireless technology [it] does not alter the fact that Plaintiff brings suit against unrelated defendants for independent acts of infringement.” One-E-Way Inc. v. Plantronics Inc. et al, 2:11-cv-06673, at 2 (CD Cal. January 19, 2012).