Rule 23.Class actions
Group IV: Parties · Last amended April 27, 2016 · Last verified July 13, 2026
Full Text of Rule 23
Notes
Note: This language is drawn principally from Federal Rule 23(a) and contains essentially the same requirements as Code § 15-5-50, except that subsection (3), the requirement that the claims of the representative be typical is not mentioned, although it could be inferred from the language of the statute. Subsection (5), which requires that when money damages are the primary relief sought, each class member have a claim exceeding one hundred dollars is new. It is intended to limit class actions when the amount sought may be small in comparison with the costs incurred in the litigation. Although not stated in the federal rules, a similar requirement exists when jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship, for then each member of the class must meet the jurisdictional amount, Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291 (1973). Present State practice permits a class action where the relief sought is primarily equitable, even though small monetary damages are sought, Miller v. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp., 279 S.C. 90, 302 S.E.2d 340 (1983).
Note: This Rule 23(b)(1) is the language of present Federal Rule 23.1. Existing State practice permits a class action in these circumstances. See e.g., Hernlen v. Vandiver, 145 S.C. 412, 143 S.C. 222 (1928) (action on behalf of depositors, stockholders, and creditors of bank against directors of bank for mismanagement) and Black v. Simpson, 94 S.C. 312, 77 S.E. 1023 (1913) (suit by stockholders against director and general manager for fraudulent acquisition of control). The Rule simply provides more specific guidance for the procedure.
Note: This Rule 23(b)(2) is current Federal Rule 23.2. It is included here because it is similar to the requirements for derivative actions. In addition, present State practice recognizes a class action in similar circumstances.
Note: This is the language of current Federal Rule 23(e). It is necessary to protect the rights of all members of the class.
Note: This Rule 23(d) is found in Federal Rules 23(c) and (d) in slightly different language, and describes the present State procedure in specific language. This Rule requires those seeking to maintain an action on behalf of a class to notify the members of the class of the pendency of the action.
Note to 2016 Amendment: This amendment directs that a portion of any residual funds in a class action matter be distributed to the South Carolina Bar Foundation to promote access to the civil justice system for low income residents of South Carolina. However, the rule does not require that parties create residual funds as part of any class action settlement.
Amendment History
Amended by Order dated April 27, 2016.
Plain-English Summary
Before a case can go forward as a class action in South Carolina, Rule 23(a) requires the court to find all five things at once: the class is too large for practical joinder of every member, the class shares common questions of law or fact, the representative's claims or defenses look like the rest of the class's, and the representative can protect the class's interests. The fifth requirement is where South Carolina departs from the federal rule it otherwise tracks closely: when the relief sought is primarily money damages rather than an injunction or declaration running to the class as a whole, each class member's individual stake must exceed one hundred dollars. That threshold does not apply when the case is primarily about injunctive or declaratory relief for the class.
Rule 23(b) is not the three-category federal framework of "predominance" or "limited fund" classes. Instead it covers two specific situations that resemble class treatment: shareholder derivative suits under (b)(1), which require a verified complaint alleging the plaintiff's ownership stake and the efforts made to get the corporation's own directors or membership to pursue the claim before the shareholder sued instead, and suits by or against the members of an unincorporated association under (b)(2), treated similarly once the court is satisfied the named representatives will adequately protect the group's interests. Anyone reading Rule 23 alongside the federal rule should not assume the subsections line up — South Carolina's (b) is doing different work than federal Rule 23(b).
Once a class or derivative action is underway, Rule 23(c) requires court approval and notice to the class before the case can be dismissed or compromised, and Rule 23(d) gives the court ongoing power to shape the litigation: deciding early whether the case will proceed as a class action (an order that can be revisited before the merits are decided), setting terms that protect absent members, ordering notice of the suit or a proposed settlement, and, if the representation later looks inadequate, imposing conditions or narrowing the judgment so it binds only the parties currently before the court.
Rule 23(e), added in 2016, addresses money left over after a class settlement pays every approved claim, expense, cost, and fee. Parties are not required to structure a settlement so that residual funds exist at all, but when they do, the rule requires at least half of the residue to go to the South Carolina Bar Foundation to support access to the civil justice system for low-income residents. Anything beyond that minimum can go to the Foundation as well or to other purposes connected to the underlying litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does every South Carolina class action need to clear the $100-per-member threshold?
No. That requirement in Rule 23(a)(5) applies only when the relief primarily sought is money damages rather than an injunction or declaration running to the class as a whole.
Is a shareholder derivative suit the same thing as a class action under Rule 23?
They are grouped in the same rule and share procedural features — a verified complaint, court approval before dismissal or compromise, adequate representation — but Rule 23(b)(1) imposes its own requirement that the plaintiff plead the efforts made to get the corporation or association to pursue the claim itself before suing derivatively.
Can the parties settle or drop a class action without telling the class?
No. Rule 23(c) requires court approval of any dismissal or compromise and requires notice to all class members in whatever manner the court directs.
What are "residual funds" under Rule 23(e)?
They are the money left over after a class settlement or judgment has paid every approved class member claim, litigation expenses, costs, attorneys' fees, and other court-approved disbursements meant to carry out the relief.
Do parties have to create residual funds when they settle a class action?
No. Rule 23(e)(1) states that nothing in the rule limits the parties from proposing, or the court from approving, a settlement structured so that no residual funds remain.
Where do residual funds go if they do exist?
At least fifty percent must go to the South Carolina Bar Foundation for programs promoting access to the civil justice system for low-income residents; the court can send the remaining balance to the Foundation as well or to other entities whose purposes connect to the litigation.
Is South Carolina's class-action test identical to the federal one?
Not entirely. The core numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy factors track the federal rule, but the added per-member dollar threshold for damages classes and the residual-funds provision have no federal Rule 23 counterpart.