ORCP 32

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 13.220)

      Members of class must be sufficiently identifiable at outset to fulfill functions of determining persons entitled to notice and facilitating court determination of action manageability. Bernard v. First Nat. Bank, 275 Or 145, 550 P2d 1203 (1976)

      Court must assess merits of alleged issues or defenses requiring separate adjudication before allowing case to proceed as class action and may bar raising of additional alleged issues or defenses after certification. Bernard v. First National Bank, 275 Or 145, 550 P2d 1203 (1976)

      Claims or defenses of representative party are typical of claims or defenses of class if arising from same event, practice or course of conduct and based upon same legal theory. Newman v. Tualatin Development Co. Inc., 287 Or 47, 597 P2d 800 (1979)

Under former similar statute (ORS 13.260)

      Court could not require that claim statements be in form of checks payable to class members. Benj. Franklin Fed. Sav. and Loan v. Dooley, 287 Or 693, 601 P2d 1248 (1979)

In general

      Although attorney fees for representing class are subject to control of court, fee agreement between representative parties and their attorney must be considered, notwithstanding that Rule lists factors to be considered by court in determining fee. Kalman v. Curry, 88 Or App 398, 745 P2d 1232 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

      Where plaintiffs were individual policyholders insured by SAIF and $81 million was transferred by state from Industrial Accident Fund, common legal and factual issues concerning consequences of transfer on SAIF’s dividend and premium administration existed such that proposed class satisfied requirements of this section. Alsea Veneer, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 117 Or App 42, 843 P2d 492 (1992), rev’d in part on other grounds 318 Or 33, 862 P2d 95 (1993)

      Fact that damages may differ among individual plaintiffs or that some plaintiffs may have suffered no damages does not render claims atypical. Alsea Veneer, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 117 Or App 42, 843 P2d 492 (1992), rev’d in part on other grounds 318 Or 33, 862 P2d 95 (1993)

      Where proposed class includes holders of three types of policies with damages that may not be identical and each type is represented by named plaintiffs, differences in damages do not defeat typicality and may be resolved and proposed class satisfies requirements of this section. Alsea Veneer, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 117 Or App 42, 843 P2d 492 (1992), rev’d in part on other grounds 318 Or 33, 862 P2d 95 (1993)

      To determine appropriateness of creating claims class or issues class, consideration is commonality of law and fact only with respect to particular claim or issue to be decided. Shea v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 164 Or App 198, 990 P2d 912 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

      Trial court does need to consider every listed factor in making its determination whether class action is superior to other available methods of adjudicating controversy. Belknap v. U.S. Bank National Association, 235 Or App 658, 234 P3d 1041 (2010), Sup Ct review denied

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

In general

      “Fluid recovery” in class actions, (1981) Vol 41, p 527

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 13.220)

      55 OLR 183 (1976)

In general

      56 OLR 468 (1977); 27 WLR 757 (1991); 72 OLR 205 (1993); 73 OLR 639 (1994)

ORCP 32D

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Appellate standard of review for approval of class action settlement is for abuse of discretion, while review of legal conclusions regarding settl ement is for errors of law. Froeber v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 222 Or App 266, 193 P3d 999 (2008)

ORCP 32I

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      This rule does not require that “showing” be of prelitigation offer or that requirements of rule exist before damages claims have been filed. Stewart v. Albertson’s, Inc., 308 Or App 464, 481 P3d 978 (2021), Sup Ct review denied

      Use of term “appropriate” in this rule describes discretionary determination by trial court whether, in light of what substantive law treats as available and just relief, defendant’s proposed cure is appropriate compensation, correction or remedy under circumstances. Stewart v. Albertson’s, Inc., 308 Or App 464, 481 P3d 978 (2021), Sup Ct review denied