Dyer v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that choice-of-law issues prevented a manageable class under Rule 23(a)
• noting that “the commonality requirement is interpreted to 22 require very little”
• court not content to certify an action and then handle the problems raised by the parties at a later stage
• risk of jury confusion, when taken together with risk of improperly grouping different states’ laws, outweighs any possible advantages to be gained from certification
• named representative was 8 atypical due to “differences among plaintiffs that result from differing factual 9 circumstances”
• the typicality requirement will not be met where factual differences exist among plaintiffs, even in a case with a single defendant and a single product because differences may force the named representatives to make arguments at trial that may be adverse to another class member’s claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).