Common use of Typicality Clause in Contracts

Typicality. Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the class representatives’ claims be “typical of the claims . . . of the class.” As the Third Circuit explained, “The typicality inquiry is intended to assess whether the action can be efficiently maintained as a class and whether the named plaintiffs have incentives that align with those of absent class members so as to assure that the absentees’ interests will be fairly represented.” Baby ▇▇▇▇, 43 F.3d at 57-58. Where there is an allegation that the plaintiffs and other class members were targeted by the same wrongful course of conduct under a common legal theory, Rule 23(a)(3) does not mandate that they share identical claims, and “factual differences among the claims of the putative class members do not defeat certification.” In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 310. A finding of typicality will generally not be precluded even if there are pronounced factual differences where there is a strong similarity of legal theories. Id. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Settlement Class Members’ claims because they, like all other Settlement Class members, were allegedly subject to Chesapeake’s alleged improper royalty payment practices. Therefore, Plaintiffs satisfy the typicality requirements of Rule 23(a)(3).

Typicality. Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the class representatives’ claims be “typical of the claims . . . of the class.” As the Third Circuit explained, “The typicality inquiry is intended to assess whether the action can be efficiently maintained as a class and whether the named plaintiffs have incentives that align with those of absent class members so as to assure that the absentees’ interests will be fairly represented.” Baby ▇▇▇▇, 43 F.3d at 57-58. Where there is an allegation that the plaintiffs and other class members were targeted by the same wrongful course of conduct under a common legal theory, Rule 23(a)(3) does not mandate that they share identical claims, and “factual differences among the claims of the putative class members do not defeat certification.” In re Prudential, 148 F.3d at 310. A finding of typicality will generally not be precluded even if there are pronounced factual differences where there is a strong similarity of legal theories. Id. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Settlement Class Members’ claims because they, like all other Settlement Class members, were allegedly subject to Chesapeake’s alleged improper royalty payment practicespractices pursuant to the MEC provision of their leases. Therefore, Plaintiffs satisfy the typicality requirements of Rule 23(a)(3).