Typicality. The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class for purposes of this Settlement because they concern the same general alleged conduct, arise from the same legal theories, and allege the same types of harm and entitlement to relief. Rule 23(a)(3) is therefore satisfied. See Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 1984) (typicality satisfied where claims “arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory”); Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxxx, 244 F.3d 807, 811 (11th Cir. 2001) (named plaintiffs are typical of the class where they “possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members”).
Typicality. The claims of the representative Plaintiffs and all other members of the classes arise from the same practices and course of conduct of the Defendants and are based on the same legal theory.
Typicality. The claims of Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the Class Members they seek to represent for purposes of settlement.
Typicality. 11. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Comcast’s swaps and acquisitions reduced and deterred overbuilder competition and enabled Comcast to raise prices to supracompetitive levels, thereby injuring all Class members in the same manner. Accordingly, this Court finds the typicality requirement is satisfied.
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 Xxxx, 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. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of all of the other members of the Class because all of the plaintiffs sustained similar injuries and damages arising out of Defendants’ common cause or course of conduct in violation of State and Federal laws and regulations and the injuries and damages of all the other members of the Class were caused by Defendants’ wrongful conduct as described in this Complaint.
Typicality. Plaintiff has also shown “[t]he claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class” in relation to the Settlement Class proposed under the Settlement Agreement. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(3).
Typicality. Plaintiff has also shown “[t]he claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(3).
Typicality. The claims of the Representatives Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class they seek to represent. Therefore, in the context of this settlement the element of typicality is satisfied.
