EFTA01372132.pdf

Page 9 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97188, * that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the Class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the Class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Rule 23(b)(3), under which Plaintiffs seek class certification, additionally requires that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that (16] a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that Rule 23's requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence, and the Court "must make whatever factual and legal inquiries are necessary and must consider all relevant evidence and arguments presented by the parties." In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 306 (3d Cir. 2008). 1. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires that it be impracticable to join all class members, but there is "no minimum number of members needed for a suit to proceed as a class action." Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 595 (3d Cir. 2012). Though Rule 23(a)(1) "requires examination of the specific facts of each case," the numerosity requirement is generally met "if the named plaintiff demonstrates that the potential number of plaintiffs exceeds 40." Id. (citations omitted). Here CAA identified 186,031 N14 Class members representing 80,224 N14 Class Vehicles. ECF No. 92-4. ¶ 4. The Court finds that the numerosity requirement is satisfied. 2. Commonality Under Rule 23(a)(2), the Named Plaintiffs must "share at least one question of law or fact with the grievances of the prospective class." Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 227 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Class claims "must depend upon a common contention . . . of such a nature that it is capable of classwide [*17] resolution -- which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011). The commonality requirement is met here. Because, as Plaintiffs represented when seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, "[ajll Class Vehicles had the allegedly defective timing chain tensioner installed," P. Mot. Preliminary Approval, ECF No. 70 at 21, "the claims of the Class Representatives and the Settlement Class are predicated on the core common issue as to whether Defendants are liable for the damages suffered" by Class members as a result of the defective part. Id. 3. Typicality Under Rule 23(a)(3), the Named Plaintiffs' claims must be "typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 'The typical inquiry is intended to assess . . . whether the named plaintiffs have incentives that align with those of absent class members so as to assure that the absentees' interests will be fairly represented." Baby Neal for & by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 57-58 (3d Cir. 1994). "This investigation properly focuses on the similarity of the legal theory and legal claims; the similarity of the For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0065738 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00211922 EFTA01372132