What's happening
This bill updates New York's class action procedures, clarifying certification standards, class counsel appointment, settlement procedures, and attorney fee rules.
Why it matters
Expands eligibility for class actions. by removing prior restrictions on bringing class actions for statutory penalties or minimum recoveries, making it easier for groups harmed by certain statutory violations to pursue collective remedies.
Requires judges to actively oversee class action counsel selection. , mandating courts to evaluate and appoint class counsel based on experience, resources, and ability to represent the class—potentially raising the quality and accountability of representation for class members.
Creates clearer, more transparent settlement and dismissal procedures. , including mandatory notice to class members, required court hearings on fairness, and disclosure of related agreements, which can help prevent unfair or collusive settlements that disadvantage class participants.
Strengthens protections against abuse of objections. by prohibiting payments to objectors or their lawyers for withdrawing objections or appeals unless approved by the court, aiming to reduce “objector blackmail” and ensure objections serve the class’s interests.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Make Class Actions Easier
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Committed to rules
- Advanced to third reading
- 2nd report cal.
- 1st report cal.404
- Referred to judiciary
- Print number 6334a
- Amend and recommit to rules
- Referred to rules
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Strengthen Class Action Laws
Assembly Floor Calendar · Sponsor Jeffrey Dinowitz
Full text
3 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
6334--A
2019-2020 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
June 5, 2019
Introduced by Sen. HOYLMAN -- (at request of the Office of Court Administration) -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Rules -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee
AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to class actions
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Subdivision b of section 901 of the civil practice law and rules, as added by chapter 207 of the laws of 1975, is amended to read as follows:
b. [Unless a statute creating or imposing a penalty, or a minimum measure of recovery specifically authorizes the recovery thereof in a class action, an action to recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute may not be maintained as a class action] Once the other prerequisites under subdivision a of this section have been satisfied, class certification shall not be considered an inferior method for fair and efficient adjudication on the grounds that the action involves a governmental party or governmental operations.
§ 2. Section 902 of the civil practice law and rules, as amended by chapter 474 of the laws of 1975, is amended to read as follows:
§ 902. Order allowing class action[. Within sixty days after the time to serve a responsive pleading has expired for all persons named as defendants in an action brought as a class action, the plaintiff shall move for an order to determine whether it is to be so maintained] and appointing class counsel. a. At an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action. An order under this section may be conditional, and may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits on the court's own motion or on motion of the
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD11589-03-9
S. 6334--A 2
parties. The action may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under section 901 of this article have been satisfied. Among the matters which the court shall consider in determining whether the action may proceed as a class action are:
1. the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
2. the impracticability or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate actions;
3. the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class;
4. the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claim in the particular forum;
5. the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.
b. Unless a statute provides otherwise, the order permitting a class action shall appoint class counsel. In appointing class counsel, the court:
1. shall consider:
(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;
(ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;
(iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and
(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class;
2. may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class;
3. may order potential class counsel to provide information on any subject pertinent to the appointment and to propose terms for attorneys' fees and nontaxable costs;
4. may include in the appointing order provisions about the award of attorneys' fees or nontaxable costs under rule 909 of this article; and
5. may make further orders in connection with the appointment.
c. When one applicant seeks appointment as class counsel, the court may appoint that applicant only if the applicant is adequate under subdivisions b and e of this section. If more than one adequate applicant seeks appointment, the court must appoint the applicant best able to represent the interests of the class.
d. The court may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.
e. Class counsel must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.
§ 3. Rule 908 of the civil practice law and rules, as added by chapter 207 of the laws of 1975, is amended to read as follows:
Rule 908. [Dismissal] Voluntary dismissal, discontinuance [or], compromise or settlement. [A class action] The claims, issues or defenses of a class shall not be voluntarily dismissed, discontinued, [or] compromised, or settled without the approval of the court. [Notice of the proposed dismissal, discontinuance, or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.] The following procedures apply to a proposed voluntary dismissal, discontinuance, compromise or settlement:
a. In class actions where a class has been certified, reasonable notice of the proposal shall be given to the class in such a manner as the court directs to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.
S. 6334--A 3
b. The court shall direct that notice be given to members of a class or putative class not otherwise entitled to notice under subdivision a of this rule where the court finds that such notice is necessary to protect the interest of such members.
c. The content of the notice and the expenses of notification shall be governed by subdivisions (c) and (d) of section 904 of this article.
d. If the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
e. The parties seeking approval must file a statement identifying any agreement made in connection with the proposal.
f. In class actions where notice to the class was given pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 904 of this article, the court, before approving a voluntary dismissal, discontinuance, compromise, or settlement of a class action, may direct that notice thereof afford a new opportunity to request exclusion from the class to class members who had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion but did not do so.
g. Any class member may object to the proposal if it requires court approval under this rule; the objection may be withdrawn only with the court's approval. Unless approved by the court, no payment or other consideration may be provided to an objector or objector's counsel in connection with (i) foregoing or withdrawing an objection, or (ii) foregoing, dismissing, or abandoning an appeal from a judgment approving the proposal.
§ 4. Rule 909 of the civil practice law and rules, as amended by chapter 566 of the laws of 2011, is amended to read as follows:
Rule 909. Attorneys' fees. If a judgment in an action maintained as a class action is rendered in favor of the class, the court in its discretion may award attorneys' fees to the representatives of the class and/or to any other person that the court finds has acted to benefit the class based on the reasonable value of legal services rendered and if justice requires and to the extent not otherwise limited by law, allow recovery of the amount awarded from the opponent of the class.
§ 5. This act shall take effect on the first of January next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to class actions
This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation if his Advisory Committee on Civil Practice.
We are advised that our Committee has reviewed and supports, with modification, the proposal of the New York City Bar Association to more closely align New York law governing class actions in CPLR article 9 with the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which were enacted in 2003. Earlier versions of the Federal rule adopted innovations developed in New York's law. But the State procedures were last revised in 1975 and should be amended to reflect the significant improvements to the administration of class actions now available to litigants in Federal courts but not in New York's courts.
Read the full memo (950 words)
This measure includes the amendments described below.
8901(b)
The measure would: (1) eliminate the restriction on class actions involving a penalty or minimum recovery, and (2) add language expressly permitting class actions against governmental entities.
First, under current law, where a statute imposes a penalty or minimum amount of recovery, New York authorizes a class action only if the stat- ute expressly permits a party to file such a lawsuit. This approach simply results in attempts to evade the section 901 restriction and prompts unnecessary litigation about the meaning of and possible waiver of many statutes' penalty or minimum recovery provisions. Equally impor- tant, the rule does not apply in Federal courts in New York, which results in State-Federal forum shopping. The measure would delete this language.
Second, although State common law once limited class actions against governmental entities, the so-called "government operations rule," court decisions have since eroded this rule. The measure would authorize class actions against governmental entities where all the prerequisites to class certification under section 901(a) are otherwise met.
8902
The measure would: (1) eliminate the fixed deadline to move for class certification, and (2) direct appointment of counsel in the class certification order.
Current law requires that a party move for class certification within 60 days of the last responsive pleading. In some actions, whether certif- ication of one or more classes is appropriate under section 901(a) cannot be determined until after limited discovery. The measure would replace the current fixed 60-day deadline, which sometimes results in pro forma certification motions, with a requirement that a party move at a practicable time. The amendment would improve the ability of the parties to craft and a court, where appropriate, to certify class defi-
nitions. This new subdivision matches the language of Federal Rule 23(c)(1).
Article 9 currently lacks substantive criteria and procedures for the selection of class counsel. This measure would adopt (with appropriate cross-references within Article 9) the language of Federal Rule 23(g), which identifies explicit factors for a court to consider when assessing the ability of proposed counsel to represent the class(es), including counsel's experience, the resources for litigating the action, and know- ledge of the relevant area(s) of law. Additionally, the measure would require a court to appoint class counsel when it first certifies the class(es).
8908
Section 908 would be amended to address two concerns in the context of prejudgment termination of an action.
First, under current law, a class action may not be dismissed, discon- tinued or compromised without both court approval and notice to the class or a prospective class where one has not been certified yet. However, notice can be burdensome and expensive without any correspond- ing benefit. The measure would eliminate the mandatory provision of notice and authorize a court to exercise its discretion to direct notice where appropriate to protect the interests of the class or putative class. The amended section 908 would track the comparable language of Federal Rule 23(e), but would retain the existing requirement for judi- cial approval.
Second, the section would be expanded to include settlement of an action.
8909
We recommend an amendment to the section governing attorney's fees to prevent any statutory conflict about the basis for a fee award and the standard that governs when the fees are to be paid by a defendant.
The Legislature has authorized fee awards in actions for particular types of claims or defendants. For example, in CPLR 8601(a), the Equal Access to Justice Act adopted in 1990, the Legislature authorized a court to award attorney's fees in actions against the State, but no fees may be awarded if the position of the State was "substantially justi- fied" or where "special circumstances make an award of fees unjust."
The proposed addition of the phrase "to the extent not otherwise limited by law" would direct that, where a specific statute authorizes a fee award to be paid by a defendant, the standards of that more specific statute govern eligibility for and the amount of any fee award, rather than the general fee provision of section 909. Compare Cobell v. Norton, 407 F. Supp. 2d 140, 148-89 (D.D.C. 2005) (analyzing fee award and substantial justification under federal EAJA in class action).
Our Committee asks that we extend its appreciation and gratitude to the State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee, Council on Judicial Administration and Litigation Committee on Class Actions in the New York Courts of the New York City Bar Association for proposing this legis- lation. This measure would take effect on the first day of January next succeed- ing the date on which it shall have become a law.
2017-18 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
OCA 2017-61
2016 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
OCA 2016-88 Assembly 9573 (M. of A. Weinstein) (ordered to 3rd Rdg., Rules Cal. 292)
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.