Editing Class action (section)

==Advantages==
Proponents of class actions state that they offer a number of advantages<ref>[[Association of Trial Lawyers of America]], [http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/classactions/classactions.aspx Class Action Press Kit] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061203200700/https://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/classactions/classactions.aspx |date=2006-12-03 }}
</ref> because they aggregate many individualized claims into one representational [[lawsuit]].

First, aggregation can increase the efficiency of the legal process, and lower the costs of litigation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://classaction.findlaw.com/research/cohelan/sec0104.html |title=FindLaw Class Action and Mass Tort Center: Legal Research: Cohelan on California Class Actions |publisher=Classaction.findlaw.com |date=1966-07-01 |access-date=2013-10-03}}</ref> In cases with common questions of law and fact, aggregation of claims into a class action may avoid the necessity of repeating "days of the same [[witnesses]], [[wikt:exhibit|exhibits]] and issues from [[trial (law)|trial]] to trial". ''Jenkins v. Raymark Indus. Inc.'', 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986) (granting certification of a class action involving [[asbestos]]).

Second, a class action may overcome "the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights". ''Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor'', 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (quoting ''Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp.'', 109 F.3d 388, 344 (7th Cir. 1997)). "A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone's (usually an attorney's) labor." ''Amchem Prods., Inc.'', 521 U.S. at 617 (quoting ''Mace'', 109 F.3d at 344). In other words, a class action ensures that a [[defendant]] who engages in widespread harm{{spaced ndash}}but does so minimally against each individual [[plaintiff]]{{spaced ndash}}must compensate those individuals for their injuries. For example, thousands of shareholders of a public company may have losses too small to justify separate lawsuits, but a class action can be brought efficiently on behalf of all shareholders. Perhaps even more important than compensation is that class treatment of claims may be the only way to impose the costs of wrongdoing on the wrongdoer, thus deterring future wrongdoing.

Third, class-action cases may be brought to purposely change behavior of a class of which the defendant is a member. ''[[Landeros v. Flood]]'' (1976) was a landmark case decided by the [[California Supreme Court]] that aimed at purposefully changing the behavior of doctors, encouraging them to report suspected child abuse. Otherwise, they would face the threat of civil action for damages in [[tort]] proximately flowing from the failure to report the suspected injuries. Previously, many physicians had remained reluctant to report cases of apparent child abuse, despite existing law that required it.

Fourth, in "limited fund" cases, a class action ensures that all [[plaintiff]]s receive relief and that early-filing plaintiffs do not raid the fund (i.e., the [[defendant]]) of all its [[asset]]s before other [[plaintiffs]] may be compensated. See ''Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.'', 527 U.S. 815 (1999). A class action in such a situation centralizes all claims into one [[Venue (law)|venue]] where a court can equitably divide the assets amongst all the [[plaintiffs]] if they win the case.

Finally, a class action avoids the situation where different court rulings could create "incompatible standards" of conduct for the defendant to follow. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). For example, a court might certify a case for class treatment where a number of individual bond-holders sue to determine whether they may convert their [[Bond (finance)|bonds]] to [[common stock]]. Refusing to litigate the case in one [[trial (law)|trial]] could result in different outcomes and inconsistent standards of conduct for the defendant [[corporation]]. Thus, courts will generally allow a class action in such a situation. See, e.g., ''Van Gemert v. Boeing Co.'', 259 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

Whether a class action is superior to individual [[litigation]] depends on the case and is determined by the judge's ruling on a motion for class certification. The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 23, for example, states that [[mass tort]]s are ordinarily "not appropriate" for class treatment. Class treatment may not improve the efficiency of a mass tort because the claims frequently involve individualized issues of law and fact that will have to be re-tried on an individual basis. See ''Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co.'', 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rejecting nationwide class action against tobacco companies). Mass torts also involve high individual damage awards; thus, the absence of class treatment will not impede the ability of individual claimants to seek justice. Other cases, however, may be more conducive to class treatment.{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}}

The preamble to the [[Class Action Fairness Act of 2005]], passed by the United States Congress, found:
<blockquote>Class-action lawsuits are an important and valuable part of the legal system when they permit the fair and efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action against a defendant that has allegedly caused harm. </blockquote>