The following excerpt is from Soto v. Castlerock Farming & Transp., Inc., Case No.: 1:09-cv-00701 - AWI - JLT (E.D. Cal. 2012):
Under Rule 23(a), "claims are 'typical' if they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members" because the claims "need not be substantially identical." Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). To determine typicality, a court should inquire "whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to
Page 11
the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct." Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.