In lieu of this statement, the movant may state reasons why a determination of these matters cannot be made at that time, and offer a proposal as to when the determination should be made. In certifying a class action as maintainable under Rule 23(b)(3), the court may include in its order the provisions for notice pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) or may postpone a determination of the matter.
Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 23-I
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
Stylistic changes were made to this rule to conform with the 2007 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2)-(4) were deleted as unnecessary because the material is covered by other rules.
COMMENT
Rule 23 -I. Section (a) incorporates the substance of U.S. District Court for D.C. Rule 23.1 which requires specific allegations, relating to the class character of the suit, to be included in the complaint. Section (b) has been amended to incorporate certain other features in U.S. District Court Rule 23.1. Section (b) provides a clear and simple procedure for promptly securing a Court ruling on the class character of the suit. The amendment requires a motion for certification as a class to be made within 90 days. Ten days is provided for an opposition to be filed. The procedure is similar to the local requirements for handling a motion for summary judgment set forth in Rule 12 -I. However, the certification motion necessarily comes much earlier in the action than does a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Rule 23(c)(1) permits the Court to "alter or amend" its order later if there should develop matters not apparent to the Court at the time the order was entered. Note that the motion for certification and any opposition thereto should also contain any material with respect to notice procedure which may be required by Rule 23 -I(c). Section (c) included matters which were previously contained in Rule 23 -II, which is now vacant. This section provides a procedure for the Court to determine the manner in which notice to the class members is to be provided. The procedure is substantially identical to that of former Rule 23 -II. As noted above, the use of "mini-hearings" as a tool for determining who should pay for the notice, which was found to be contrary to the language of Federal Rule 23 in Eisen, is specifically authorized under the amendment to this Court's Rule 23. Section (d) is taken from U.S. District Court Rule 23-1. Accordingly, the word "claimant" is changed to "plaintiff" throughout the Rule.