Upperman v. Wright

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

AARON UPPERMAN PLAINTIFF v. No: 4:21-cv-00549-JM-PSH

RODNEY WRIGHT, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Aaron Upperman (“Plaintiff”) seeking to join other lawsuits and proceed as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (Doc. No. 3). Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED; he has not met the requirements for class certification.

“One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (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 the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) (emphasis added). An action may be maintained as a class action only when all of the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied. Plaintiff has the burden of showing that the claimed class should be certified and that the requirements set forth above are met. See Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472 (8th Cir. 2016).

Plaintiff does not identify the class he seeks to certify; the Court presumes he is referring to the many plaintiffs listed on the original complaint (Doc. No. 1).

Additionally, plaintiff has offered no evidence to support a finding that the class he seeks to certify is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. He also has failed to offer evidence to support a finding that issues common to the class predominate over issues that differ among individual members of the class. See id. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that the class should be certified.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of July, 2021. vnmenenmesnstt Seon