231 Pa. Code § r. 1702 app. A
The prerequisites of present Rule 2230 are numerosity of parties, impracticability of joining all as parties and adequate representation of the interests of all. To these prerequisites Rule 1702 adds others, namely, that there are questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims or defenses are typical and the class action provides a fair and efficient method of adjudication of the controversy.
However, the rule deliberately declines to adopt that part of Federal Rule 23 which requires that, in actions based on common questions of law and fact, a class action be "superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy". The Federal rule lists the matters pertinent to a finding of superiority.
Rule 1702(5) provides that, if the other criteria are met, a class action need provide only a "fair and efficient" method for adjudication of the controversy, Rule 1708, infra, lists the criteria which the court will consider to determine if the action meets this standard.
The rule further varies from the Federal rule in making this standard applicable to all class actions. The Federal rule applies its "superiority" standard only to actions based on common questions of law and fact. It may be that the criteria in Rule 1708 will, as a practical matter, make the class action "superior" to other forms of action. If so, so much the better from the point of view of good judicial administration. However, such "superiority" is not required.
"Superior" is a comparative term. A "fair and efficient" standard avoids questions of whether "better" alternatives exist or conversely whether a class action will be "inferior" to other alternatives. The court may weigh the need for class action relief objectively, without the need to search for other possible "superior" judicial remedies, which will exclude the class action. For example, if a class action is a fair and efficient form of action, the court should not reject it because it believes a "test case" would be a "superior" technique. Cf. Katz v. Carte Blanche, 496 F.2d 747 (C.A.3d 1974), cert. denied 419 U. S. 885, 95 S. Ct. 152, 42 L. Ed.2d 125 (1975).
However, where a specific statutory remedy is provided for the processing of claims, numerosity of claims will not justify a class action. See Lilian v. Commonwealth, 467 Pa. 15, 354 A.2d 250 (1976). This follows the classic principle that a statutory form of relief must be followed exclusively.
It is significant that the opinion in Klemow, supra, left open the question of "superiority" stating in footnote 14 "We need not here decide whether there are, in certain cases, additional criteria which one who attempts to bring a class action must meet, e.g., as required under the federal practice, that the class action is superior to other available methods for handling the controversy..." Rule 1702 will decide this open question.
Rules 1701 and 1702 make clear that "parties" are defined to mean the named parties to the action who represent the class. The court must find that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
231 Pa. Code app A r. 1702