290 F.R.D. 409
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Case filed after Hurricane Irene (2011) challenging NYC emergency plans for disabilities; BCID and CIDNY organizations plus individuals Bell and Morales sue City of New York and Mayor Bloomberg under ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYCHRL; OEM responsible for citywide emergency plans and information dissemination; plaintiffs allege four planning deficiencies: reliance on public transit for evacuations, lack of high-rise evacuation plans, inadequate disability-accessible shelters, and no prioritization of disability needs during first days after disaster; plaintiffs move to certify a class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) seeking injunctive relief; court grants class certification as modified, with further comment invited; key procedural posture involves standing and certification rather than merits at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of class plaintiffs | Bell and Morales have injury-in-fact and threat of future harm | Plaintiffs lack injury-in-fact at certification | Standing found for individuals; injury-in-fact alleged or threatened suffices at certification |
| Organizational standing of BCID and CIDNY | Organizations have either associational or independent standing | Organizations lack standing or sufficient indicia of membership | Both BCID and CIDNY have standing (associational or independent) to pursue claims |
| Rule 23(b)(2) class certification viability | Defendants’ universal conduct affects all disabled NYC residents; injunctive relief appropriate | Issues are not sufficiently uniform or the class definition is improper | Class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate |
| Proposed class definition adequacy and precision | Class should include all NYC residents with disabilities within NYC emergency programs | Definition may presuppose merits; too broad/undefined | Court permits modification; defines class as all people with disabilities within NYC served by emergency programs; invites objections |
Key Cases Cited
- DIA v. N.Y. Coal for Quality Assisted Living, Inc., 675 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012) (associational standing for organizations representing members)
- Nnebe v. Daus, 644 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2011) (scant evidence of injury can establish organizational standing)
- Hargrave v. Vermont, 340 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 2003) (threat of injury and standing need not be conjectural)
- Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2003) (risk or threat of harm can confer standing depending on severity)
- Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003) (ADA/Rehabilitation Act obligations to provide equal access)
- Raymond v. Rowland, 220 F.R.D. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (commonality in class actions exists even with varied injuries)
- In re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litig., 269 F.R.D. 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (standing at class certification stage—allegations suffice to plead injury)
- Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006) (standing requires accepting complaint allegations as true at certification)
- Chang v. United States, No. 327 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2003) (preventive relief feasible when injury is imminent)
- Bolden v. Walsh Constr. Co., 688 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2012) (class definition must not depend on merits outcome)