On a less serious note today, if, like us, you are getting tired of hearing the phrase "famous for being famous," we offer a new buzz phrase for 2007: "A class of one." A couple of our favorite bloggers have been using the phrase recently, and neither of them meant the same thing.
The UCL Practitioner talked about a January class action in which the numerosity element for class certification under FRCP Rule 23 was discussed, and the court found that a "class of one" cannot be certified.
The "numerosity" requirement of class certification it is almost always satisfied, so the case law very rarely discusses it. In McGaughey v. Treistman, 2007 WL 24935 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2007), however, the court denied class certification of "a class of one" for failure to satisfy the numerosity requirement...
Meanwhile, Ross's Employment Blog was talking about the rejection of a "class of one" in discrimination cases.
The ("liberal") 9th Circuit today rejected a legal theory that many other circuits have adopted. It's the class-of-one idea that you can win an equal protection case even though you're not claiming to be in a multi-member class such as is involved in race and sex discrimination.
We don't think the "class of one" buzz phrase will catch on though, since no court seems to like it.