Commonality Sample Clauses
The Commonality clause defines the shared elements, standards, or practices that apply uniformly to all parties or components within an agreement. In practice, this clause may specify common technical requirements, mutual obligations, or baseline procedures that must be adhered to by everyone involved, such as using the same data formats or adhering to a unified code of conduct. Its core function is to ensure consistency and compatibility across the agreement, reducing misunderstandings and streamlining collaboration by establishing a clear set of common rules.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 2 times
Commonality. “[C]ommonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered the same injury,’” and the plaintiff’s common contention “must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇, 2551 (2011) (citation omitted). Here, the commonality requirement is satisfied. Multiple questions of law and fact centering on Defendant’s class-wide practices are common to the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class, are alleged to have injured all members of the Settlement Class in the same way, and would generate common answers central to the viability of the claims were this case to proceed to trial.
Commonality. Plaintiff has also demonstrated “[t]here are questions of law or fact common to the class” in relation to the proposed Settlement Class. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(2).
Commonality. The threshold for commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) is
Commonality. Rule 23(a)(2) requires that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The Supreme Court has emphasized that “for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2), even a single common question will do.” ▇▇▇▇▇, 131 S. Ct. at 2556 (internal quotation and alterations omitted); see also In re: Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14519, at *16 (6th Cir. July 18, 2013) (“We start from the premise that there need be only one common question to certify a class.”); see also Baby ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, 43 F.3d 48, 56 (3d Cir. 1994) (“The commonality requirement will be satisfied if the named plaintiffs share at least one question of fact or law with the grievances of the prospective class.”). The key inquiry for the commonality analysis is whether a common question can be answered in a classwide proceeding, such that the answer will “drive the resolution of the litigation.” ▇▇▇▇▇, 131 S. Ct. at 2551. Applying these principles, Plaintiffs satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). The key question in this case is whether the gas produced by Chesapeake is marketable at the well and thus, whether Chesapeake may deduct the costs at issue. This is a question that can be answered on a classwide basis, satisfying Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement.
Commonality. 10. Here, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that Comcast entered into a series of market allocating swap and acquisition agreements with other cable companies that caused all class members to be harmed by paying supracompetitive prices. Plaintiff further alleges that all class members paid supracompetitive prices because of anticompetitive conduct. Accordingly, this Court finds the commonality requirement is satisfied.
Commonality. There are questions of law and fact, with regard to the alleged activities of Defendants, common to the Settlement Class.
Commonality. There are some questions of law or fact common to the Class with regard to the alleged activities of Sony in this case. These issues are sufficient to establish commonality under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(2).
Commonality. There are some questions of law or fact common to the Class with regard to the alleged activities of Toyota in this case. These issues are sufficient to establish commonality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
Commonality. There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the
Commonality. The Court next considers whether there are common questions of “law or fact” among the class members. The class members’ “claims must depend upon a common contention . . . of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇, 350 (2011). “Although the rule speaks in terms of common questions, what matters to class certification [is] the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” ▇▇▇▇▇, 764 F.3d at 360 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). “A single common question will suffice, 2:18-mn-02873-RMG Date Filed 01/25/21 Entry Number 1127 Page 7 of 11 but it must be of such a nature that its determination will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, the putative class members allege that they each lived within the Class Area during the Class Period and were each exposed to PFAS that contaminated their water ▇▇▇▇▇ as a result of AFFF use at the AFTC. These common allegations raise common answers likely relevant to resolving the claims, therefore satisfying the commonality requirement.