This paper will discuss whether the prerequisites of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, were properly applied in the certification of the class in the NFL Concussion Injury Litigation, with an emphasis on typicality. Discussion will begin with the general rule of class actions and drafter’s intent when the rule was enacted. It will then discuss the major amendment to the rule and the purpose of the amendment with a focus on typicality, and clarify the standard for the typicality requirement with a discussion of the United States Supreme Court decision in Amchem v. Georgine. The discussion then narrows the application of typicality with the Third Circuit’s Baby Neal test. It discusses the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania’s misapplication of typicality with an analysis of where the court erred. A brief comparison between the class action of Amchem and the NFL Concussion Injury Litigation is also discussed.

In closing, the paper concludes with a summation of the writer’s analysis of the District Court’s holding.