Paiva v. Salisbury

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied absent class member Joseph W. Shepard’s motion to enforce class counsel’s duties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The court held that class counsel were adequately and diligently representing the class, had appropriately communicated with class members consistent with mediation confidentiality, and were not required to provide individualized representation or undertake the requested investigations.

Holdings

1. Rule 23(g) requires class counsel to fairly and adequately represent the class as a whole, but it does not give an absent class member the same communication, control, or individualized representation rights as a separately represented client. Class counsel may appropriately limit communications and decline individualized representation when necessary to maintain focus on the class and preserve confidential mediation.
2. Shepard was not entitled to an order requiring class counsel to confirm his class membership, respond to all communications, investigate alleged violations of an interim order, provide individualized assistance, recuse themselves, or terminate mediation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether class counsel violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) by allegedly failing to communicate adequately with an absent class member and failing to address his individualized complaints.
2. Whether the court should order class counsel to provide individualized assistance, investigate Shepard's allegations, recuse themselves, or otherwise impose additional duties under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(g) and 23(d).

Disposition

denied