Common use of Commonality Clause in Contracts

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. 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.” Wal-Mart Stores ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, 131 S. Ct▇▇▇ ▇. at ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇, 2556 (2011) (internal quotation and alterations omitted); see also In re: Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig.▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Whirlpool, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14519722 F.3d 838, at *16 853 (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.