To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc.

Citation. 199 F.R.D. 280 (N.D. Ind. 2001)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff sued Defendant after buying a defective and misleading machine tool made by the Defendant. Plaintiff moved to certify the suit as a class action under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

To determine whether a class action is proper, a court does not consider the merits of the case but rather first considers the factors of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Rule 23(a), and second considers whether the action fits within one of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b).


Szabo (Plaintiff), an Indiana resident, bought machine tools from Bridgeport (Defendant), a company incorporated in Delaware and located in Connecticut. Plaintiff alleged that the tools were defective and could not do everything the promotional materials said they could do. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of warranty. Plaintiff moved to certify the suit as a class action under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), including all persons who purchased the tools during a certain time period and were similarly harmed.


Has the Plaintiff met the requirements for a certifying a class action?


Yes, the motion to certify the class is granted.


The Court determined that Plaintiff adequately demonstrated the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), and the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following