Interesting but that would be considered a small courts case since its such a small amount of money under $500 not to mention its an individuality case not a group one. Sadly you can't do much, just wait it out, a judge or lawyer would laugh at you in all honesty considering the other party has already offered you compensation by promising a patch to fix this in a week, which isn't a long time. however if they never really fix it and its a few months later you might have a neglect case but that's not worth much either, bottom line wait and do something else a post like this holds no value or point just let it be and be patient its hard but you will be able to play again soon hopefully...
You're actually wrong, sir... Sorry... The reason for FRCP 23 is to specifically permit the class action benefit of pursuing otherwise trivial claims. The aggregate is what makes FRCP relevant, it provides a unified voice for otherwise paltry sums. If you are curious, look below:
–––––––––––––––––––––STEP ONE FOR CERTIFICATION–––––––––––––––––––––
For Certification, first must satisfy ALL of (a), Four Prerequisites:
(a)(1) — Numerosity
Must be so large joinder is unfeasible.
No consensus on how “large” is large enough;, some have said 25 others have said no to 350.
Has included geographical dispersion as well as actual size.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––AND–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(a)(2) — Common Questions
There must be at least (one) question of law or fact common to the class.
Commonality defeated if separate proof to establish liability is needed.
NOTICE: Requires common questions, not the absence of individual ones.
Thus, being discriminated against, but for varying amounts of damage, is still ok.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––AND–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(a)(3) — Typical Claims
The claim or defense of the rep. must be “typical” of those of the class.
E.G. if most have lost only a few hundred and the rep has lost thousands, would fail typicality. Basically, same incentive and motives.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––AND–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
(a)(4) — Representation
The rep. must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Rep must have stake in litigation
Relationship between rep & lawyer must be straightforward.
Lawyer should have no conflicts that would cloud representation.
INSUFFICIENT—Real reason was to pursue class action to gain leverage in their own case.
Lawyers must be sufficiently skilled and equipped w/ similar case.
A 50-year criminal attorney won’t necessarily be good w/ Class Action.
–––––––––––––––––––––STEP TWO FOR CERTIFICATION–––––––––––––––––––––
Then ONE of B must be satisfied, Three Categories:
B(1) — INCONSISTENCY **Cannot opt out, will be bound**
(A) Would produce inconsistent results that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for opposing party
E.G. one party sues to block bonds, another sues to insist they go forward w/ limited size. If one suit orders cancellation, and another merely orders a limit to size, there would be a risk of incompatible standards of conduct.
–––––––––AND–––––––––
B Would impair interests of members of the class who are not actually a party to action.
E.G. Association wishes to prevent financial reorganization. If one member sues individually and loses, the reorganization will proceed—since validity was determined by court. The reorganization will thus spread to all members who wished to prevent it, without having a day in court.
MASS TORT: Interests impaired attempting to recover damages from Defendant of limited financial resources.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––OR–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
B(2) — INJUNCTIVE OR DECLARATIVE
If “party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”
Generally reserved for civil rights cases where discrimination against a whole class is alleged and injunction prohibiting discrimination is sought.
How much incidental monetary relief a class can seek before action ceases to be primarily injunctive needs to be considered.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––OR–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
B(3) — MONETARY **Can Opt-Out, Notice IS required**
Question of law or fact predominates over any questions affecting only individual members
–––––––––AND–––––––––
Class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
FACTORS DETERMINING “SUPERIOR”:
Interest in Individual Control — Members interest in individually controlling prosecution or defense of separate actions?
Existing Litigation — Extent and nature of already begun litigation by or against class members.
Concentration in One Forum — Desirability or Undesirability of concentrating litigation in one particular forum.
» Thu May 17, 2012 4:46 pm 
