Connor B. ex rel. Vigurs v. Patrick
278 F.R.D. 30
D. Mass.2011Background
- Defendants move to decertify plaintiffs’ class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) and to stay discovery pending that ruling (Dkt. Nos. 66, 67).
- The court previously certified the class on Feb. 28, 2011, defined as all children now or in the foster care custody of DCF in Massachusetts due to abuse or neglect (Connor B. ex rel. Vigurs v. Patrick, 272 F.R.D. 288).
- Defendants filed the decertification motion after Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) discussed by the parties, arguing the standard has changed.
- The court declines to revisit its certification order, finding Wal-Mart does not warrant altering the original analysis and denies both the decertification and the stay motion as moot.
- The plaintiffs’ class comprises about 8,500 children in DCF custody, with alleged systemic deficiencies (training, caseloads, foster homes, supervision, services, placement stability) that the court previously found to constitute the “glue” supporting commonality and injunctive relief.
- The court ultimately denies the decertification and stay requests, preserving the original class certification and related reliefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Wal‑Mart require decertification or reanalysis of class certification? | Wal‑Mart provides guidance on commonality and the appropriate framework. | Wal‑Mart changed the standard and warrants reexamination. | Wal‑Mart does not warrant reanalyzing the certification order. |
| Is commonality satisfied under Rule 23(a) given systemic deficiencies at DCF? | Systemic deficiencies provide the glue uniting the class claims. | Dissimilarities among class members defeat commonality. | Commonality satisfied; Wal‑Mart distinguished, no disturbance of original ruling. |
| Can injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) be certified for a class with individualized needs? | Plaintiffs proposed injunctive relief benefiting the entire class. | No single injunctive relief governs all class members due to individualized needs. | Injunctive relief appropriate; Wal‑Mart analysis does not negate the original conclusion. |
| Should the merits of the original certification be reexamined outside of Rule 23(f) appeal deadline? | Reexamination would undermine the 14-day appeal deadline. | Reexamination declined; decertification denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (held that the proposed class failed commonality under Rule 23(a)(2))
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (established the requirements of commonality and rigorous analysis for class actions)
- Connor B. ex rel. Vigurs v. Patrick, 272 F.R.D. 288 (D. Mass. 2011) (earlier certification order detailing systemic allegations in Massachusetts foster care system)
- In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 522 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2008) (guidance on standards for class certification decisions)
- Baby Neal for & by Ranter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) (representative plaintiffs may represent other injuries stemming from a practice)