Troudt v. Oracle Corp.
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
January 30, 2018, Decided; January 30, 2018, Filed
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00175-REB-CBS
[*374] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
The matter before me is Plaintiffs' Motion [*375] for Class Certification [#104], filed June 30, 2017. I grant the motion on the terms set forth herein.
I have jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §1331(federal question) and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) (ERISA).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, a class may be certified if the following requirements are met: (1) the class is so numerous 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 those of the class, and; (4) the representative parties will protect the interests of the class adequately. In addition, one of the three alternative requirements outlined in Rule 23(b) also must be satisfied. Sibley v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 254 F.R.D. 662, 670 (D. Kan. 2008).
The question whether to certify a class certification is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Anderson v. City of Albuquerque, 690 F.2d 796, 799 (10th Cir. 1982). As the proponent of class certification, plaintiffs bear [**3] a "strict burden of proof" to demonstrate the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied. Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 1162 (10th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, because a certified class may be altered, expanded, subdivided, or abandoned as the case develops, Daigle v. Shell Oil Co., 133 F.R.D. 600 (D. Colo. 1990), doubts as to the propriety of entertaining a class action should be resolved in favor of certification, see Esplin v. Hirschi, 402 F.2d 94, 99 (10th Cir. 1968) ("[I]f there is to be an error made, let it be in favor and not against the maintenance of the class action, for it is always subject to modification should later developments during the course of the trial so require.").
III. ANALYSISRead The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
325 F.R.D. 373 *; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15151 **; 2018 WL 637462
DEBORAH TROUDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Prior History: Troudt v. Oracle Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22194 (D. Colo., Feb. 16, 2017)
imprudent, rule requirements, class certification, proposed class, fiduciary, invested, plaintiffs', plan participant, class representative, fiduciary duty, damages, class action, class member, funds, certification, adequacy, defined-contribution, implicated, subclasses, excluding, notice, plans, administrative fees, named plaintiff, defined-benefit, retirement, parties