941 F. Supp. 2d 1159
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- DFEH sued LSAC for disability-related LSAT accommodations alleged to violate FEHA, the Unruh Act, and the ADA.
- DFEH brought claims both for named individuals and as a group/class on behalf of all disabled California LSAT accommodation requests from 2009 to present.
- DFEH moved for an order to proceed for group/class relief without filing a Rule 23 motion; LSAC opposed.
- The action originated as a Group and Class Accusation in state proceedings, later removed to federal court alleging federal question and diversity jurisdiction.
- DFEH contends the suit is a government enforcement action seeking broad relief and not a traditional Rule 23 class action; LSAC argues Rule 23 applies like any civil action.
- Court analyzes whether FEHA-enforced group/class relief qualifies as non-Rule 23 government enforcement under General Telephone and related authorities; Court ultimately grants DFEH’s motion to proceed without Rule 23 certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DFEH may pursue group/class relief without Rule 23 certification | DFEH argues FEHA authorizes group relief independent of Rule 23 | LSAC argues Rule 23 applies and requires certification | Yes; enforcement action not a Rule 23 class action |
| Whether DFEH enforcement action falls outside Rule 23 as a government enforcement action | DFEH is akin to EEOC-type enforcement for a class | Rule 23 governs class actions in federal court | Government enforcement action may proceed without Rule 23 |
| Whether FEHA provisions authorize proceeding in federal court under DFEH’s enforcement authority | FEHA enables group/class relief via director filing | Rule 23 controls only class actions in federal court | FEHA authorizes group/class enforcement in this action; not a Rule 23 class |
Key Cases Cited
- General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1980) (EEOC may seek classwide relief without Rule 23 certification in enforcement action)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (U.S. 2013) (class action requirements must be demonstrated; Behrend discusses Rule 23 criteria)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (class action framework exception to third-party standing)
- Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011) (parens patriae-like actions not meeting Rule 23 numerosity/adequacy)
- Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (CAFA/parens patriae-like actions not true class actions)
- People v. Pac. Land Research Co., 20 Cal.3d 10 (Cal. 1977) (state enforcement action not equivalent to private consumer class action)
- State Pers. Bd. v. Fair Employment & Hous. Com., 39 Cal.3d 422 (Cal. 1985) (DFEH recognized as public prosecutor testing a public right)