Black Lives Matter Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 113 F.4th 1249

In response to protests following George Floyd's death in Los Angeles during summer 2020, the LAPD imposed curfews, declared some demonstrations unlawful, used non-lethal force, and arrested thousands.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the City and LAPD Chief Michel Moore, alleging excessive force, unlawful arrests, and First Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
Plaintiffs sought to certify four classes: (1) protestors struck by less-lethal force, (2) those arrested for protest activity, (3) those arrested for infractions, and (4) an injunctive relief class to prohibit future LAPD misconduct.
The district court certified all four classes but did not rigorously address the requirements for class certification under Rule 23, particularly the predominance and commonality of classwide questions.
The City appealed, arguing the classes failed to meet Rule 23’s prerequisites, especially regarding predominance of common questions for damages classes.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, vacated the class certifications, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether commonality and predominance requirements under Rule 23 were met for damages classes	LAPD’s actions stemmed from common policies/customs; thus, class questions are common and predominate	Claims are fact-specific, not suitable for classwide resolution; individual circumstances outweigh commonality	District court failed to conduct rigorous analysis of commonality/predominance; certification vacated
Whether Monell claims automatically justify class treatment	Monell policies apply classwide, so commonality satisfied	Monell liability requires injury to each member from policy, not met where injuries stem from individual officer acts	Monell claims do not bypass Rule 23’s requirements; must prove common evidence exists
Whether certification of the injunctive relief class was appropriate	Plaintiffs entitled to injunctive protection against future LAPD actions	Class is overly broad and lacks identifiable common questions	Certification vacated; district court did not identify actual common questions
Whether reference to other protest cases suffices for rigorous Rule 23 analysis	Other courts certified similar protest classes; citations sufficient	Each case involves unique facts; passing citations insufficient to meet rigorous standard	Citing other certification orders does not satisfy Rule 23 analysis

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (requirement for rigorous analysis of Rule 23 prerequisites)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires questions capable of classwide resolution)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness in excessive force claims)
Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom as moving force behind constitutional violation)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (arrests for minor offenses can be constitutional with probable cause)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (failure to train as basis for municipal liability requires identifying deficiency closely related to injury)