Brown v. Government of the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 2013-0569

Background

Plaintiffs sued the District of Columbia challenging aspects of the pre-2015 civil asset-forfeiture regime that let MPD seize property (often vehicles) based on probable cause and pursue civil forfeiture, including a bond requirement to contest forfeiture.
Plaintiffs originally brought 16 claims; the court dismissed many, leaving five surviving claims. Plaintiffs moved to certify classes for four claims: Claim Three (lack of prompt interim post-seizure hearings), Claim Five (failure to provide notice of forfeiture), Claim Seven (failure to promptly return property found non-forfeitable), and Claim Fourteen (improper denial/discouragement of bond-waiver applications as applied).
The District reformed the statute in 2015, but the court evaluated constitutional defects in the pre-amendment regime covering the class period (roughly 2010–2013).
After discovery plaintiffs offered statistical and database evidence (MPD seizure reports; EvidenceOnQ exports; an expert affidavit) to show widespread seizures, missing notice entries, and data enabling class-wide damages calculation.
The court applied Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) (monetary damages predominate) and, applying a rigorous review where systemic policies are alleged, certified Claims Three and Five and denied certification for Claims Seven and Fourteen.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Claim Three — lack of prompt interim post-seizure hearings	The statute uniformly denied prompt post-seizure hearings for vehicle owners; class-wide injury exists and damages can be calculated formulaically	Some owners obtained relief via Rule 41(g), petitions, claims, or vehicles held as evidence, requiring individualized inquiries	Certified: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority met; class-wide proof and formulaic damages feasible
Claim Five — failure to provide constitutionally adequate notice of forfeiture	MPD had a widespread custom/practice of failing to send or actually deliver required notices (EvidenceOnQ shows missing entries)	MPD disputes the inference from EvidenceOnQ and points to other internal logs and some mailed notices	Certified: Plaintiffs showed numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and that damages can be calculated class-wide; District failed to rebut the inference sufficiently
Claim Seven — failure to promptly return property determined non-forfeitable	Plaintiffs rely on aggregate statistics of vehicles later released to argue numerosity and systemic practice	District disputes frequency of delayed returns and shows lack of evidence of widespread failure to return property promptly	Not certified: Plaintiffs failed to establish numerosity and common proof of a systemic practice; individual inquiries would predominate
Claim Fourteen — as-applied challenge to bond-waiver process (discouragement or unjust denials)	Plaintiffs allege Property Clerk rarely granted waivers and some individuals were discouraged or improperly denied	District argues limited number of affected plaintiffs and lack of evidence of class-wide waiver denials or discouragement	Not certified: class period narrowed to as-applied claim; Plaintiffs failed to show numerosity or commonality for a class-wide waiver-abuse claim

Key Cases Cited

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class certification requires common answers apt to drive resolution; limits Rule 23(b)(2) for individualized monetary relief)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (plaintiffs bear rigorous burden to show classwide proof of damages and predominance)
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (Rule 23 typicality and commonality principles)
McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406 (individualized damage determinations alone do not bar class certification)
Brown v. District of Columbia, 115 F. Supp. 3d 56 (D.D.C. opinion addressing many of these plaintiffs’ underlying challenges to the District’s forfeiture regime)