Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

900 So. 2d 399

Disch v. Hicks

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 29, 2004

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 2004-10-29

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 2017

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““(a) No class of civil litigants shall be certified or recognized by any court of the State of Alabama unless there shall have been compliance with the procedures for certification of the class set forth in this article. “(d) The court shall, on motion of any party, hold a full evidentiary hearing on class certification. The hearing shall be recorded, and all named parties to the action shall be given notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing by written notification given to the party’s attorney (or if appearing pro se, to the party) no later than 60 days prior to the date set for the hearing. At the hearing, the parties shall be allowed to present, in the same manner as at trial, any admissible evidence in support of or in opposition to the certification of the class. “(e) When deciding whether a requested class is to be certified, the court shall determine, by employing a rigorous analysis, if the party or parties requesting class certification have proved its or their entitlement to class certification under Ala. R. Civ. P. 23. The burden of coming forward with such proof shall at all times be on the party or parties seeking certification, and if such proof shall not have been adduced, the court shall not order certification of the class. In making this determination, the court shall analyze all factors required by Ala. R. Civ. P. 23 for certification of a class and shall not order certification unless all such factors shall have been established. ...””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 63 So. 3d 1268 - Baldwin Mutual Insurance Co. v. Edwards

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-10-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JOHNSTONE, Justice

¶1(dissenting).

¶2Section 6-5-641(e), Ala.Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:

“In making this determination [whether to certify a putative class], the court shall analyze all factors required by Ala. R. Civ. P. 23 for certification of a class and shall not order certification unless all such factors shall have been established. In announcing its determination, the court shall place in the record of the action a written order addressing all such factors and specifying the evidence, or lack of evidence, on which the court has based its decision with regard to whether each such factor has been established. In so doing, the court may treat a factor as having been established if all parties to the action have so stipulated on the record and if the court shall be satisfied that such factor could be proven to have been established.” (Emphasis added.)

¶3The named “parties to the action” did stipulate on the record that all of the Rule 23, Ala. R. Civ. P., factors had been established. Pursuant to that stipulation, the class certification order stated that the trial court “specifically [found] that the requirements under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class certification have been met.”

¶4At the time of the stipulation by the named “parties to the action,” before the putative classes had been certified, neither Objector Little nor any other unnamed member of the putative classes was a “partly] to the action,” since only the subsequent class certification made them parties. Section 6-5-641(e) does not require, and could not practicably require, that all putative class members join in such a stipulation. Therefore, a stipulation by Objector Little was not necessary to a stipulation by “all parties to the action” sufficient to authorize the trial court to “treat [the] factor[s] as having been established” and thereupon to certify the classes. § 6-5-641(e).

¶5*410Thus, the class certification in this case substantially meets the requirements, stated and preempted by § 6-5-641, for a “rigorous analysis,” without any further, pro forma discussion of the Rule 23 factors by the trial court. Consequently, I respectfully dissent from the main opinion and its judgments.

/900/so2d/399 · .json · Public domain