Calif. Representative Actions May Need To Satisfy Rule 23

Law360, New York (March 12, 2014, 6:30 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a federal procedural rule will trump an inconsistent state rule when a case is brought in federal court, regardless of its incidental effect upon state-created rights.[1] While this holding may appear simple at first blush, it has presented a challenge to federal courts adjudicating state-law claims within the confines of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Federal courts faced with representative claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), for example, have struggled to determine whether such claims are...
To view the full article, register now.