Question

In a drug raid, police in a city searched 25 apartments selected at random in a 300-unit housing project. In a class action approved by the federal court, the 25 tenants sued the city for violation of their constitutional rights. The tenant named as class representative gave notice to all unnamed class members, including another tenant who decided not to opt-out. The class action was then certified as a "common question" type. After negotiating with the class representative, the city police agreed to pay each tenant $500 and to conduct no further raids without proper warrants. The representative and the city signed a settlement agreement and a stipulation of dismissal of the class action. The other tenant objects to the number of damages he is to receive and would rather opt out now and proceed on his own. May the tenant opt out now?

a. Yes, because a class member of a "common question" class action always has the right to opt out.
b. Yes, if the court allows the tenant a second opportunity to opt out.
c. No, because the tenant did not opt out after receiving notice of the class action.
d. No, if class certification was proper.

Answer 1

B) Yes, if the court allows the tenant a second opportunity to opt out.

Step-by-step explanation:

This basically depends on the court and if it allows class members a second opportunity to opt out. Since this is a common question class action, the judge may or may not refuse to approve the settlement unless the class members are given a second opportunity to opt out. This concept is referred to as "New Opportunity to Be Excluded"