What's the difference between the state or a few individuals as a plaintiffs in a civil class action?
In a class action case, what is the difference between the plaintiff being "The People of the State of California" (just an example), compared with a list of individual plaintiffs? Do they get rewarded differently if they win?
I totally understand that it's usually criminal cases that are pursued by the state. An example I found was The People of the State of California v. GIB, LLC. GIB is the producer of Brazilian blowout products that have carcinogens in them, but the products were not label, people got sick, etc. It is a civil suit so I was confused on why it was being pursued by the state rather than the people who were harmed by the product.
- NormLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
Here's the thing: When a person is tried criminally, it's usually the People of the State of California v. Joe BadGuy. It's very rare that you'd see the People of the State of California in a civil suit unless it dealt with a claim to reimburse ALL citizens of California for some reason -- and the only thing I could think of would be if someone decided to file a class action suit claiming some state tax or fee was unconstitutional and is seeking reimbursement for everyone in California that had to pay that tax or fee.
But to answer your question: In a civil class action suit, the general rule is each person named as a plaintiff/complainant in the case receives an equal share of any award for damages ordered by the court or an equal share of an out-of-court settlement (and in a class action suit, ALL plaintiffs have to agree to the terms of an out-of-court settlement or else the case goes to trial). So in a case of the People of the State of California v. whoever, if the judge orders an award to the People of the State of California, EVERYONE in Calfornia gets a share -- in theory. It's kind of tough to determine who was a party to the suit in a state that large, and you also have to check when each person lived in California to determine whether they're eligible. See how complicated this can get?Source(s): I've been a paralegal for 20 years
- 4 years ago
Thank you for the question. It appears to me that with a purpose to answer that question I must divide it in 1/2. I would ask someone who begins studying this to learn the complete answer, each elements. 1. Civil unions as a governmental perform -- I surely believe you. The secular government of our secular nation will have to now not be within the trade of marrying men and women -- ANY humans. The government must present a package deal of benefits to dedicated couples of anything kind -- and will have to call it whatever, and civil unions work as well as whatever else. Marriage will have to stay a religious commitment and ceremony. The federal government's handiest section should be the granting of that package deal of benefits - which might be granted in the identical manner that a marriage license is now granted. Which brings us to ... 2. Marriage, as a perform of the churches and other devout groupings must now not be interfered with, by using anyone. That implies that no Catholic priest or Southern Baptist minister will have to ever be pressured to marry homosexual couples. ... It also manner, in a nation without a based religion and devout freedom, something else however. I ask that you just consider about this critically. Let your automatic reaction rage first, then sit down back and consider about it, as an American. It also must mean that these monks, ministers, and rabbis from sects that help gay marriage and suppose it to be as holy as straight marriage (among officially famous denominational businesses that you would be able to start with: The United Church of Christ, The Church of the Brethren, the Metropolitan community Church, the Unitarian Church, the North American Spiritualist Church, the cohesion Church, the Congregations of Reform Judaism, the Correllian Nativist Church international, and majorities of congregations in a few denominations that go away it up to character parishes to come to a decision whether or not or no longer they honor gay marriage as holy [there you can start with the Congregationalists and the Episcopalians, the Conservative Egalitarian Jewish Congregations and the Covenant of the Goddess]. ) I or anyone else like me has NO proper whatsoever to investigate what YOUR priest can do; but contrawise, you have no correct to make a decision what my priest can do. Your sacraments and your canon regulation need to be respected with the aid of your coreligionists -- but likewise our sacraments and our canon regulation ought to be respected with the aid of my coreligionists. That's the nature of freedom of religion - and that's fairly what this whole debate is ready, gays are incidental to it - a handy cipher that can be utilized to argue an awfully specific point -- that being -- does one staff of religions, in the us, despite the founding documents of this first-rate nation, have the right or the vigor to make use of the federal government to put into effect their beliefs on a different team of religions. The last time this was validated was once in the 1800s -- and the decision used to be naturally sure. It's being demonstrated again, I suppose the nation is extra difficult now, and it's less more likely to be successful in the end -- the primary sign of that was the give way of the bans on interracial marriage. So call it civil unions if you wish to have -- for each person -- and let the church buildings and synagogues and temples and groves DO WHAT THEY every wish to DO about who to marry -- which then shall be a only devout ceremony. I believe in case you consider it over carefully, you'll agree that could be a logical answer (and one already proposed in the new york State assembly via Assemblywoman Deborah Glick (D-ny). ) thanks once more for the question. Kindest thoughts, Hermes