314 F.R.D. 478
C.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed a class action against the City of Los Angeles, the County, and city officials arising from mass arrests during the Occupy Los Angeles protest at City Hall on November 30, 2011.
- The FAC asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, plus state-law claims including false arrest, § 52.1, and negligence.
- Plaintiffs move for certification of multiple Rule 23 classes: Damages Class and several Sub-Classes under 23(b)(3) and an Injunction Class under 23(b)(2).
- The Court held a hearing on August 23, 2013 and granted class certification subject to defined boundaries and waivers.
- The Court clarified class definitions, addressed commonality and predominance, and approved class representatives and counsel; the injunction class is narrowed for ascertainability and future notice.
- The court ordered submission of a proposed class notice by September 9, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed classes are sufficiently defined and ascertainable. | Aichele, Alexander, Clemente, Prysner, Weitz; definitions are cohesive and objective. | Defs argue terms like 'protest' and 'vicinity' are vague. | Yes; definitions refined and made ascertainable. |
| Whether the Rule 23(a) prerequisites are satisfied (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy). | Common policy of blanket arrest and detention affects all class members. | Issues may require individualized determinations. | Rule 23(a) satisfied. |
| Whether the Injunction Class meets Rule 23(b)(2) requirements. | Injunctive relief applies broadly to those denied OR release under a policy. | Potential overbreadth and need for individualized determinations. | Injunction Class certified with narrowed definition. |
| Whether the Damages Class and subclasses satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) (predominance and superiority). | Common liability issues predominate; damages calculable via class-wide methods; class is superior. | Damages may require individualized inquiries. | Common issues predominate; class action superior. |
| Whether class representation and counsel are adequate, including waivers addressing conflicts. | Named plaintiffs can adequately represent the class; waivers must be explicit关于 conflicts. | Sobel and Flynn potential conflicts due to involvement; waivers insufficient. | Adequacy found; waivers required to be explicit and filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 941 (9th Cir.2001) (standard for class certification under Rule 23(a))
- Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (U.S. 1979) (necessity of rigorous analysis under Rule 23)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality and predominance in class actions; policy-based approach)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (U.S. 2013) (damages model must tie to common antecedents; class damages allowed if feasible)
- Leyva v. Medline Indus., Inc., 716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir.2013) (post-Comcast, common questions can predominate with class-wide damage calculation)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.2012) (standing for injunctive relief based on policy injuring plaintiffs)
- Wang v. Chinese Daily News, 709 F.3d 829 (9th Cir.2013) (existence of a common policy can support class certification)