SURVEY OF SEVENTH CIRCUIT DECISIONS: CLASS ACTIONS

Last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated, "the class action is an awkward device, requiring careful judicial supervision."1 Indeed it is. Few procedural rules produce more commentary and published decisions than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions in federal court.2 Each year the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals and the federal district courts across the country struggle with the language and requirements of Rule 23, often producing conflicting decisions. In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit published six noteworthy opinions addressing class action issues. This article will address the six cases individually, describing the facts, analyses and holdings of each case, as well as addressing possible consequences resulting from the decision. Two recurring themes permeate five of the six cases. The first theme is the Court's distrust of class action counsel.3 The second theme is that district courts have numerous, nondelegable duties they must fulfill in class action cases. In the Seventh Circuit, the Court's distrust of class action counsel drives its imposition of these duties on the district courts. I. PAYTON V. COUNTY OF KANE Payton v. County of Kane4 is the most important class action decision the Seventh Circuit issued in 2002. Although the decision addresses neither the Court's distrust of class-action counsel nor the duties of the district courts, it illustrates how "[t]he class action is an awkward device. "