Home > Journals > St. John's Law Review > Vol. 99 > No. 2
Document Type
Note
Abstract
(Excerpt)
This Note first explores the methodologies that the Supreme Court utilizes to interpret the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and then applies these methodologies to interpret Rule 23. It argues that the Court has demonstrated two different viable strategies to interpret the Rules: (1) applying basic principles of statutory interpretation analysis and (2) giving effect to the policy and purpose surrounding the Rule. This Note concludes that both of these methodologies can be applied to Rule 23, and that as applied, both support the position that Rule 23 authorizes courts to legally grant incentive awards to named plaintiffs in class action lawsuits.
Part I provides a general background on incentive awards and a discussion of the current circuit split regarding their legality. Part II discusses the methodologies that the Court employs to interpret the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and underscores their similarities and differences to routine statutory interpretation methodologies. Part III applies basic principles of statutory interpretation to Rule 23—focusing specifically on its text, structure, and history—and concludes that the drafters of Rule 23 intended the Rule to act as a legal framework for incentive awards. Finally, Part IV applies a purpose and policy-driven interpretation approach to Rule 23. It analyzes the precedent and purpose behind the Rule and concludes that incentive awards are an essential component of class action litigation because their effect on class actions is inextricably linked with the overall purpose of Rule 23. Therefore, judges must have the authority to grant incentive awards to named plaintiffs that comply with Rule 23 and the provisional safeguards within its text.