425. In fact, a vast majority of classes that meet the requirements of rule 23(b)(1)(B) inevitably will satisfy the rule 23(b)(3) requirements. 1 Newberg on Class Actions § 4.01, at 4-5. Due process does not turn on such formalistic distinctions. C. The Distinction Between Law and Equity. The majority’s argument that applying Shutts to rule 23(b)(1) would render all mandatory class actions unconstitutional, is also premised on a faulty understanding of the distinction between law and equity. See maj. op. at 987 n. 16. What the majority fails to acknowledge is that the distinction between money damages and equitable remedies preserves mandatory class actions in the vast majority of cases, including traditional common fund cases from equity. See Newberg on Class Actions § 1.18, at 1^46 (<HOLDING>). The only cases affected by Shutts are modern
recognizing that the majority of actions that meet the requirements of rule 23b1 seek equitable relief recognizing majority rule and collecting cases recognizing the majority rule recognizing the tide of the majority of case law recognizing distinction made by majority