| name | class-certification-order |
| title | Order Certifying Class |
| description | Drafts a federal or state court order certifying a class action under Rule 23. Triggers when formalizing class certification after a granted motion, drafting certification orders, or preparing rulings for appellate review. Covers Rule 23(a) findings, Rule 23(b) analysis, class definition, counsel appointment under Rule 23(g), and notice provisions. |
| author | CaseMark |
| author_url | https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/class-certification-order |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | us |
| practice | litigation |
| language | en |
| tags | ["drafting","pleading"] |
Order Certifying Class
Drafts a court order certifying a class action with appellate-ready analysis and clear administration guidance.
Prerequisites
- Granted certification motion — docket number, filing date, briefing history
- Class definition — proposed class, any subclasses, class period dates
- Evidentiary record — declarations, expert reports, defendant records on class size and commonality
- Named plaintiffs — identity, claims, adequacy showing
- Proposed class counsel — firm(s), lead attorneys, Rule 23(g) qualifications
- Rule 23(b) basis — (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3)
Workflow
1. Caption & Procedural Recitals
- Standard caption per local rules: court, full case title, civil action number, title "ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION"
- Identify motion (filing date, docket number, movant), procedural history (complaint, amendments, opposition/reply, oral argument), and record reviewed
2. Findings of Fact — Rule 23(a)
Each factor requires specific record citations (exhibit numbers, deposition pages, expert declarations):
- Numerosity — class size estimate with evidentiary basis; why joinder is impracticable
- Commonality — common questions tied to defendant's conduct; identify "common contention" capable of classwide resolution per Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)
- Typicality — named plaintiffs share legal theories, facts, and injuries with the class
- Adequacy — no conflicts, willingness to serve; counsel has experience, resources, subject-matter knowledge
3. Conclusions of Law
Rule 23(a): Apply findings to each element with controlling circuit and Supreme Court authority. Key precedent:
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) — commonality rigor
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) — damages model must match liability theory
Rule 23(b):
| Subsection | Required Showing |
|---|
| (b)(1) | Separate actions create incompatible standards or impair other members' interests |
| (b)(2) | Defendant acted on grounds generally applicable; injunctive/declaratory relief appropriate |
