The 200th episode of “South Park” features a class action lawsuit by 200 celebrities led by Tom Cruise against the small fictitious Colorado town. As a Colorado resident and class action lawyer, I’m dismayed at the lack of attention to detail by the South Park writers when it comes to Colorado class action law. (Ok, I haven’t actually seen the episode, but I have read a variety of reviews from seemingly reputable entertainment media sources like this one). Just to set the record straight, in Colorado, as in other U.S. states, class actions are representative in nature. Although perhaps it makes for better drama, a real class action wouldn’t involve a mob of 200 celebrities storming the courthouse to air their grievances. Instead, Mr. Cruise would have to show that his claims for being “ripped on” were typical of the claims of other celebrities. Meanwhile, other victims like Bono, Oprah and the leather clad, leashed Harrison Ford could sit in their cartoon mansions and wait for their court-approved notices, blissfully ignorant that there was any lawsuit going on at all. Another problem is that some of the putative class members aren’t even real celebrities. The facts relating to alleged injuries of a cartoon mouse like Mickey obviously do not share commonality with the alleged injuries of a farcical caricature of a real person, such as a giant, mechanical Barbara Streisand. To be clear, I’m only taking issue with the characterization of class actions in the episode. I’m sure in all other respects, the depictions of people, places, and events are completely accurate and true to life.
South Park Gets it Wrong
April 20, 2010 by Paul Karlsgodt
Posted in Class Action Humor, Colorado Civil Procedure | Tagged bono, class certification, colorado class action law, entertainment class action, mickey mouse, oprah, south park, south park class action, streisand, tom cruise | 2 Comments
2 Responses
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Subscribe by Email
Twitter Feed: @classaction
- More Perspectives on Trends in Class Arbitration Waivers a Year After Concepcion bit.ly/LjFGTu 1 day ago
- California Supreme Court to Weigh in on Statistical Sampling bit.ly/KKBau8 4 days ago
- It’s Not too Late to Sign up for Next Week’s CLE Webinar on Statistics in Class Actions bit.ly/KGpifs 1 week ago
-
Our Contributors
Baker Hostetler Links
Blogroll
- 3 Geeks and a Law Blog
- CAFALawBlog
- California Class Action Law
- Class Action Attorney Fee Digest Blawg
- Class Action Countermeasures
- Class Action Defense Blog
- Class Actions in Canada
- Classified: Carlton Fields Class Action Blog
- Dewey Cheatham & Howe Blog
- Drug and Device Law Blog
- Gabe’s Guide to the e-Discovery Universe
- How Appealing
- Jackson on Consumer Class Actions and Mass Torts
- Mass Tort Litigation Blog
- NC Business Litigation Report
- New Jersey Appellate Law Blog
- Overlawyered
- Point of Law
- SCOTUS Blog
- Securities Docket
- Spam Notes
- The Complex Litigator
- The D&O Diary
- The Learned Lawyer
- The Race to the Bottom
- The UCL Practitioner
- Wage Law blog
- With Vigour and Zeal
Lawyers' Resources
Litigation Support
-
Recent Comments
- More Perspectives on Trends in Class Arbitration Waivers a Year After Concepcion « ClassActionBlawg.com on Concepcion a Year Later, Are Consumer Class Actions Dead Yet?
- California Supreme Court to Weigh in on Statistical Sampling « ClassActionBlawg.com on Trial By Formula, Statistical Sampling, and the Right to Due Process
- Concepcion a Year Later, Are Consumer Class Actions Dead Yet? « ClassActionBlawg.com on Battleground TCPA
- Concepcion a Year Later, Are Consumer Class Actions Dead Yet? « ClassActionBlawg.com on NYT Dealbook Blog: Explaining the Securities Class Action Downturn
- Concepcion a Year Later, Are Consumer Class Actions Dead Yet? « ClassActionBlawg.com on Will AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion Really Kill the Consumer Class Action?
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
Posts by Date
Tags
arbitration AT&T Mobility blawg review blog review CAFA canada class action canadian class action class action class action blog class action CLE class action commentary Class Action Decisions Class Action Fairness Act Class Action News class action reform class action settlement Class Action Trends class arbitration class arbitration waiver class certification CLE program collateral estoppel collective action concepcion consumer class action cy pres daubert dukes employment class action european class action FAA foreign cubed frcp 23 international class action International Class Action Law rigorous analysis rule 23 scotus securities class action securities fraud Supreme Court tort reform transnational class action u.s. supreme court wal-mart“Like” Us On Facebook


It’s southpark, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Certification standards in South Park are apparently looser than in the typical Rule 23 context, given the precedent of Everyone v. Everyone, 3 S.P.Ep. 6 (1999).