| name | class-certification-motion |
| title | Motion for Class Certification |
| description | Drafts a Motion for Class Certification under FRCP 23 or state equivalents, arguing numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority from case materials. Use when drafting class certification motions, seeking class treatment, or preparing Rule 23 briefing in discovery or pre-trial phases. |
| author | CaseMark |
| author_url | https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/class-certification-motion |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | us |
| practice | litigation |
| language | en |
| tags | ["drafting","motion"] |
Motion for Class Certification
Produces a plaintiff-side FRCP 23 (or state equivalent) class certification motion grounded in case-file evidence and structured for rigorous judicial scrutiny.
Prerequisites
- Pleadings — complaint, answer, amended pleadings
- Discovery materials — interrogatories, document productions, RFAs, defendant's business records showing scope of conduct
- Expert reports — damages models, class-wide proof methodology, statistical analyses
- Deposition transcripts — named plaintiff(s), corporate designees, key witnesses
- Named plaintiff declaration — representative-role understanding, absence of conflicts
- Class counsel qualifications — CV/firm resume, prior class action experience, resources
Quick Start
- Review case materials and identify the uniform policy/practice at issue
- Draft a precise, administrable class definition tied to the liability theory
- Build Rule 23(a) arguments from discovery evidence
- Select and brief the applicable Rule 23(b) subsection
- Propose notice/administration plan and case management approach
- Preempt anticipated defense arguments with record citations
Core Workflow
1. Introduction (1–2 pages)
State defendant's specific misconduct, proposed class definition (temporal/geographic scope), approximate class size, common injury, and why joinder is impracticable.
2. Class Definition
The definition must:
- Track the liability theory (not merits outcomes)
- Be administratively manageable via objective criteria
- Specify dates corresponding to period of misconduct
- Match geographic scope to defendant's conduct and applicable law
- Require no individualized inquiry for membership
3. Rule 23(a) Prerequisites
Numerosity — Cite defendant's records, discovery data, or expert estimates. Address geographic dispersion and economic infeasibility of individual suits. For negative-value claims, show individual recovery < litigation costs.
Commonality — Apply Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011): identify common questions generating common answers. Focus on uniform policies, standardized contracts, common course of conduct. Distinguish substantial common questions from peripheral individual ones.
Typicality — Show named plaintiff suffered the same injury type through the same mechanism. Cite specific evidence. Address unique-defense arguments; distinguish damages quantum from liability theory.
Adequacy — Named plaintiff: case knowledge, commitment, no conflicts. Class counsel: prior class actions, results, judicial recognition, resources, co-counsel arrangements.
