Dl v. District of Columbia
277 F.R.D. 38
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege a widespread failure to provide FAPE to District of Columbia preschoolers with disabilities under IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, and state law.
- Class certification was granted in 2006 for a broad class of children aged 3–5 who were denied appropriate services.
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) raised questions about commonality and class-wide proofs in large-scale actions.
- Defendants moved to decertify the class in 2011-2011, arguing lack of standing and failure of commonality/typicality.
- Plaintiffs sought to maintain or modify certification, including a hybrid (b)(2)/(b)(3)) approach and possible amendments.
- The court conducted a Rigorous Rule 23 analysis in light of Wal-Mart and granted in part and denied in part decertification and certification, with rulings on monetary relief and future class structure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Wal-Mart require decertification or modification of the class? | Wal-Mart’s commonality test still satisfies class certification. | Wal-Mart collapses commonality and suggests decertification or restructuring. | Wal-Mart does not require full decertification; some modification allowed. |
| Is the class still appropriate under Rule 23(a)(2) commonality after Wal-Mart? | Common injury from denial of FAPE binds class-wide proof. | Differences among injuries undermine commonality. | Commonality satisfied; "glue" of systemic failures binds class. |
| Is typicality of the named plaintiffs preserved under Wal-Mart? | Named plaintiffs’ claims align with class-wide IDEA violations. | Mootness of some claims undermines typicality. | Typicality preserved; named plaintiffs adequately represent the class. |
| Whether a hybrid 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) certification is appropriate post-Wal-Mart? | Hybrid certification to cover both injunctive/declaratory and monetary relief. | Monetary claims cannot be certified under 23(b)(2). | Hybrid certification approved for (b)(2) and (b)(3) claims; monetary relief recertified under (b)(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court 2011) (commonality requires a common question capable of classwide resolution; monetary damages not allowed under 23(b)(2))
- General Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (framework for commonality and class action prerequisites)
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1975) (standing and mootness in class actions; controversy may exist for a named defendant even if named plaintiff becomes moot)
- Eubanks v. Billington, 110 F.3d 87 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (recognizes hybrid class certification approaches within the D.C. Circuit)