Coleman v. District of Columbia
306 F.R.D. 68
D.D.C.2015Background
- Benjamin Coleman, through a court-appointed conservator, sues the District of Columbia challenging the District’s tax-sale statutes governing delinquent property taxes.
- The statute permits a private purchaser of a tax lien to add substantial amounts and, if unpaid, foreclose, transferring title and potentially wiping out the original owner's equity beyond owed taxes and costs.
- Coleman alleges the surplus equity taken by the sale violates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief.
- The suit later adds the Estate of Jean Robinson as a named plaintiff; her estate likewise lost excess equity due to the tax-sale law.
- Plaintiffs move to certify a class representing all DC property owners who lost excess equity under the tax-sale scheme; the court ultimately grants certification for two classes: a damages class and a declaratory-relief class.
- The court evaluates standing, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and Rule 23(b) predicates before granting class certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 23 prerequisites met? | Coleman argues 23(a) hurdles are satisfied (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy). | District disputes numerosity and potential shared injuries; argues some members may not have excess equity. | Yes; all four 23(a) requirements satisfied. |
| Declaratory relief class under 23(b)(2)? | Declaratory relief is appropriate for generally applicable District practices. | Not disputed; no contrary argument raised. | Declaratory Relief Class certified under Rule 23(b)(2). |
| Damages class predominates under 23(b)(3)? | Common liability issues predominate; damages can be calculated with a common formula. | Valuation of individual properties may require individualized proof. | Predominance satisfied; damages issues largely common and calculable by a common method. |
| Numerosity sufficient to warrant class treatment? | Approximately 34 potential members; joinder impracticable and class appropriate. | Some potential members may be excluded for lack of excess equity; numerosity disputed. | Numerosity satisfied; joinder impracticable given vulnerabilities and distribution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality and predominance principles guiding class certification)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (merits issues cannot be conflated with Rule 23(a) requirements)
- Parko v. Shell Oil Co., 739 F.3d 1083 (7th Cir. 2014) (merits defenses cannot defeat numerosity at certification)
- Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2001) (peeks at merits in class-certification limited to issues affecting Rule 23)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (typicality and commonality considerations in class actions)