Basis for Class Action

Commonality: potential class members must have all suffered an action or inaction that arises from a common set of facts, and should thus be decided by application of similar legal standards. Typicality: this element is met when the claims of the class representative are typical of the claims of the entire class.

Among the most fundamental of all class action criteria is the presence of common legal and factual issues among the potential class members. This means that the claims of the proposed class members must share common questions of law or fact that predominate over individual issues.

Class Actions can be filed in Federal or State court. To file in Federal court you have to have a violation of Federal Law. The Federal System, court or otherwise is always limited to things that affect the entire nation. Rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States.

So the states rights problems you may wish to review two common cases1) Rooker Feldman and 2) the Younger doctrine.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a legal principle that prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments, unless Congress has specifically authorized it. The doctrine is based on the idea that a litigant shouldn’t be able to re-litigate matters that have already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. The doctrine was established by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983). 

The Younger abstention doctrine is a judicial rule that prevents federal trial courts from exercising jurisdiction in certain circumstances. It requires federal courts to defer to pending state court proceedings, even if federal jurisdiction exists. The doctrine was originally intended to prevent non-interference, 

The Younger abstention doctrine applies when three factors are present: 

• There is an ongoing state proceeding 
• The claim raises important state interests 
• The state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise the federal constitutional claims 

The Supreme Court has expanded the doctrine in several ways: 

In Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n (1982), the court held that the doctrine applies to noncriminal judicial proceedings when important state interests are involved. 

In Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005), the court held that federal courts may need to recognize the preclusive effects of state-court judgments in cases with parallel litigation in both state and federal courts. 

The Younger Doctrine Abstention under Younger holds that federal courts should abstain from cases that are pending in state proceedings. The facts of Younger involved a criminal defendant that challenged the state (California) criminal statute for which he was indicted.

The probate exception to federal jurisdiction is a principle that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts over wills and decedents’ estates. This exception prevents federal courts from hearing probate matters, such as: Probate of a will, Annulment of a will, Administration of an estate, and Distribution of property in a probate court’s custody. 

The exception is intended to ensure that federal courts do not dispose of property belonging to a probate estate. It reserves these matters to state probate courts. However, the exception is limited, and federal courts can hear cases that may indirectly involve a probate estate. For example, in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Marshall v. Marshall narrowed the exception, allowing for “federalized” inheritance litigation in some cases.