Wisconsin Supreme Court Aligns State Class Action Statute with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

22 December 2017 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog
Authors: Michael D. Leffel Elizabeth A. N. Haas

On December 21st, the Wisconsin Supreme Court entered an order adopting proposed amendments to Wisconsin’s class action procedures in state court actions, which are “intended to align [the state rule] with the federal class action rule, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.” See In re proposed amendments to Wisconsin Statutes s.s. 803.08 and 426.110, Pet. No. 17-03 (entered Dec. 21, 2017), available here. The order completes an administrative rules process involving public hearing and comment that took place over the course of 2017. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s vote to adopt the proposed amendments was unanimous.

The order replaces Wisconsin’s current, one-sentence class action statute, Wis. Stat. 803.08—itself a holdover from the nineteenth-century Field Code. The new class action rule will not be effective until July 1, 2018, although, under the terms of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s order, there will be a presumption that the new rule also applies to cases pending as of the effective date, absent a finding of unfeasibility or injustice. Given the brevity of Wisconsin’s current class action statute, demonstrating the unfeasibility or injustice of applying the new rule to a pending class action case may be difficult.

Wisconsin’s replication of federal Rule 23 brings with it the now-familiar terminology and procedures used in federal class action cases. Proposed classes in Wisconsin state court actions will now need to satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and also fall under one of the types of classes described in Rule 23(b) (i.e., those that avoid a risk of inconsistent verdicts, those seeking common injunctive relief, or those where common questions predominate and a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication). In light of the fact that Wisconsin is expressly modelling its amended class action statute on federal Rule 23, Wisconsin courts will likely rely on federal precedent as persuasive authority regarding common class action issues such as ascertainability, predominance, and superiority. The new Wisconsin rule also carries with it the procedural mechanics for class notice, court approval of class settlements, and attorney fee awards, which have all been used in federal class actions for years.

In related news, a bill was introduced in the Wisconsin State Assembly on December 19, 2017, which proposed further changes to Wisconsin’s class action statute. See 2017 Assembly Bill 773 (introduced Dec. 19, 2017), available here.

In the coming weeks, Foley attorneys will be providing deeper analysis of Wisconsin’s adoption of these new class action procedures and any related legislative developments in a forthcoming article in the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Lawyer magazine.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI