English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Over the past three decades, the juridical link and concerted action exceptions have evolved from dicta in the Ninth Circuit's decision in La Mar to an amorphous and undertheorized body of case law that has dangerously merged procedural and jurisdictional issues. Drawing on the principles of class action jurisprudence set forth by the Supreme Court in Amchem and Ortiz, lower courts should consider the issues of class certification and Rule 20(a) joinder before turning to the issue of standing under Article III. Under this approach, courts would not be able to reconcile much of the juridical links case law with the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 20(a). However, for a narrow category of cases involving 23(b)(3) defendant classes, courts could employ the exceptions to serve the two policy objectives underlying the class action device: judicial economy and private law enforcement. In summary, courts should not view the juridical links doctrine as a joinder device, but as a test for ensuring Rule 23(a)(3) typicality for a plaintiff serving as class representative in a multiple defendant class action.

Reconciling the Juridical Links Doctrine with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Article III