Motion for Class Certification - Connecticut

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

SUPERIOR COURT

Judicial District of [________________________________] at [________________________________]

Docket No.: [________________________________]

Return Date: [__/__/____]

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff [________________________________] hereby moves, pursuant to Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8, for an order certifying this action as a class action. This Motion will be heard at the time and place set by the Court. Any objection should be filed in accordance with the Practice Book and applicable scheduling order.

THE MOTION

Plaintiff [________________________________] ("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully moves this Court for an Order:

1. Certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8(3) [and/or 9-8(1) and/or 9-8(2)];

2. Appointing Plaintiff [________________________________] as Class Representative;

3. Appointing [________________________________] and [Firm Name] as Class Counsel; and

4. Determining the form and manner of class notice to be given under Practice Book § 9-9.

This Motion is based on this Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Law, the Affidavit(s)/Declaration(s) of [________________________________], the pleadings and papers on file, and any evidence and argument presented at the hearing on this Motion.

Proposed Class Definition

Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class:

All persons in the State of Connecticut who [________________________________] during the period from [__/__/____] through [__/__/____] (the "Class Period").

Plaintiff also seeks certification of the following Subclass(es), if appropriate:

Excluded from the Class are: Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and legal representatives; the judicial officers assigned to this litigation and members of their immediate families and staff; persons who timely and validly request exclusion; and [________________________________].

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. INTRODUCTION

This action is well suited for class treatment under Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8. Defendant engaged in a uniform course of conduct affecting [________________________________], and the dispositive questions can be resolved with common, classwide proof — largely from Defendant's own records and witnesses. As in Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208 (2008), the predominance requirement is satisfied because common evidence will establish Defendant's challenged practice and its classwide effect, "thereby rendering individualized proof unnecessary." Certification is the superior method of adjudicating this controversy.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Background of the Litigation

1. [________________________________]

2. [________________________________]

B. Defendant's Uniform Conduct

3. [________________________________]

4. [________________________________]

C. Plaintiff's Experience as a Class Member

5. Plaintiff [________________________________] is a member of the proposed Class.

6. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff [________________________________]. See Affidavit of [________________________________], Ex. [____].

D. Evidence of Classwide Harm

7. [________________________________]

8. [________________________________]

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Class certification is governed by Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8. Section 9-7 establishes four prerequisites: (1) numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation. Section 9-8 requires that one of three additional conditions be met, including, as relevant here, § 9-8(3): that "questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy."

"Because our class certification requirements are similar to those embodied in rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and our jurisprudence governing class actions is relatively undeveloped, we look to federal case law for guidance in construing the provisions of Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8." Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309, 321 (2005). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing each requirement, and the trial court undertakes a rigorous analysis; it may probe behind the pleadings and consider evidence relevant to certification, but does not adjudicate the ultimate merits. Id. at 321-22. Where a court certifies (or declines to certify) a class, it must make a finding on predominance — an omission of that finding is reversible error. See id. at 374-76 (reversing certification where the trial court failed to make the predominance finding required by § 9-8).

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Prerequisites of Practice Book § 9-7

1. Numerosity — § 9-7(1)

Section 9-7(1) requires that "the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable."

☐ The proposed Class consists of approximately [________________________________] members.
☐ Evidence supporting numerosity: [________________________________].
☐ Joinder is impracticable because: [________________________________].

The number and identities of Class members are ascertainable from Defendant's records.

2. Commonality — § 9-7(2)

Section 9-7(2) requires "questions of law or fact common to the class." Common questions include:

☐ Whether Defendant engaged in [________________________________];
☐ Whether Defendant's conduct was unlawful, unfair, or deceptive in violation of [________________________________];
☐ Whether Defendant's uniform practice applied to the Class;
☐ Whether Class members suffered an ascertainable loss as a result;
☐ The appropriate measure of damages or other relief;
☐ [________________________________]

3. Typicality — § 9-7(3)

Section 9-7(3) requires that the representative's claims be "typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Plaintiff's claims arise from the same course of conduct and the same legal theories as the Class:

☐ Plaintiff was subjected to the same conduct as Class members;
☐ Plaintiff's claims arise from the same course of conduct by Defendant;
☐ Plaintiff's legal theories are identical to those of the Class;
☐ [________________________________]

4. Adequacy — § 9-7(4)

Section 9-7(4) requires that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."

a. Adequacy of the Class Representative. Plaintiff has no conflicts with the Class, has a sufficient stake in the outcome, and is committed to vigorously prosecuting this action. See Affidavit of [________________________________], Ex. [____].

b. Adequacy of Class Counsel. Proposed Class Counsel are experienced in complex class litigation, have committed adequate resources, and will fairly and adequately represent the Class. See Affidavit of [________________________________], Ex. [____].

B. The Proposed Class Satisfies Practice Book § 9-8(3): Predominance and Superiority

1. Predominance

Common questions predominate because liability turns on Defendant's uniform conduct, provable through common evidence. As in Artie's Auto Body, "virtually all of the evidence" needed to prove Defendant's challenged practice consists of Defendant's "own records and the testimony of [Defendant's] employees, thereby rendering individualized proof unnecessary." 287 Conn. at 213-14.

☐ Defendant's conduct was standardized across the Class;
☐ Liability can be established through Defendant's own records and witnesses;
☐ Ascertainable loss/causation can be shown on a classwide basis through [________________________________];
☐ Damages can be calculated classwide using [________________________________];
☐ Individual issues, if any, are manageable through subclasses or individualized post-liability proceedings;
☐ [________________________________]

The methodology of Plaintiff's expert demonstrates that generalized, classwide evidence can establish Defendant's conduct and the resulting loss. See Expert Report of [________________________________], Ex. [____]; Artie's Auto Body, 287 Conn. at 214.

2. Superiority

A class action is superior because:

☐ Individual control: Class members' individual stakes are small relative to the cost of litigation;
☐ Other litigation: Plaintiff is not aware of other pending litigation by Class members concerning this controversy [or: [________________________________]];
☐ Desirability of this forum: [________________________________];
☐ Manageability: Common issues predominate and Class members are identifiable from Defendant's records.

C. Alternative: Certification Under Practice Book § 9-8(1) and/or § 9-8(2)

☐ § 9-8(1): Separate actions would risk inconsistent adjudications establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, or would be dispositive of non-party members' interests.

☐ § 9-8(2): Defendant acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making final injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate as to the Class as a whole.

D. The Class Is Ascertainable

The proposed Class is defined by objective criteria and is ascertainable from Defendant's business records, including [________________________________]. Class membership does not depend on resolution of any merits question.

V. PROPOSED TRIAL PLAN AND CLASS NOTICE

A. Trial Plan

Plaintiff proposes to try the common liability questions on a classwide basis using the common evidence identified above, followed by [________________________________] for the determination of relief. A proposed trial plan is attached as Ex. [____].

B. Class Notice

Upon certification of a class under § 9-8(3), the Court shall direct notice to Class members under Practice Book § 9-9. Plaintiff will provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to members identifiable through reasonable effort. The proposed notice (Ex. [____]) describes the nature of the action, the class definition, the claims and defenses, the right to enter an appearance through counsel, the right and procedure to request exclusion, and the binding effect of a class judgment.

☐ Direct mail notice to identifiable Class members;
☐ Email notice where addresses are known;
☐ Publication notice in [________________________________];
☐ Dedicated case website;
☐ [________________________________]

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court certify the proposed Class under Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8(3) [and/or 9-8(1)/(2)], appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative, appoint the undersigned as Class Counsel, and direct notice under § 9-9.

DATED: [__/__/____]

THE PLAINTIFF,

By: [________________________________]
[Attorney Name], Esq.
Juris No.: [________________________________]
[Firm Name]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

EXHIBITS

☐ Exhibit A: Affidavit of [________________________________] (Proposed Class Representative)
☐ Exhibit B: Affidavit of [________________________________] (Class Counsel)
☐ Exhibit C: Expert Report of [________________________________]
☐ Exhibit D: Proposed Class Notice and Notice Plan
☐ Exhibit E: Proposed Trial Plan
☐ Exhibit F: [________________________________]

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION was served, in accordance with Practice Book §§ 10-12 through 10-17, on all counsel and self-represented parties of record via:

☐ Connecticut Judicial Branch E-Services
☐ First-Class U.S. Mail
☐ Email

to the following:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]

[________________________________]
Signature / Commissioner of the Superior Court

Connecticut Practice Notes

• Governing rules. Practice Book § 9-7 (four prerequisites) and § 9-8 (three class types) govern certification in the Connecticut Superior Court; § 9-9 governs the determination order and conduct of the action. The rules track Federal Rule 23, and Connecticut courts look to federal case law for guidance. Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309, 321 (2005).
• Certification standard. The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying each requirement; the trial court conducts a rigorous analysis and may consider evidence beyond the pleadings, but does not decide the ultimate merits. A predominance finding under § 9-8 is mandatory — failure to make it is reversible error. Collins, 275 Conn. at 374-76.
• CUTPA class actions. A class action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act is authorized by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(b), which directs that such actions proceed under the class-action rules. CUTPA requires each class member to have suffered an "ascertainable loss." Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208 (2008) (predominance satisfied where classwide loss provable through defendant's records).
• Interlocutory appeal. Connecticut generally does not permit interlocutory appeal of class-certification orders. The notable exception is CUTPA: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110h expressly authorizes an immediate appeal of an order granting or denying class certification "in an action brought under section 42-110g." See Collins, 275 Conn. at 318 n.9 (recognizing that § 42-110h provides for interlocutory appeal of class certification orders entered in CUTPA actions). For non-CUTPA claims, certification orders are generally reviewable only after final judgment.
• Key cases. Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (2005) (standard; mandatory predominance finding; typicality; § 42-110h interlocutory appeal limited to CUTPA); Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208 (2008) (predominance in CUTPA class via common proof); Macomber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 277 Conn. 617 (2006).

Sources and References

• Conn. Practice Book §§ 9-7, 9-8, 9-9 (class actions)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(b) (CUTPA class actions)
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110h (CUTPA class certification interlocutory appeal)
• Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (2005)
• Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208 (2008)
• Macomber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 277 Conn. 617 (2006)
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (persuasive); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (persuasive)

This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Connecticut class certification practice — including the mandatory predominance finding and the CUTPA-only interlocutory appeal right under § 42-110h — has traps for the unwary. Consult experienced Connecticut class action counsel before filing.