DL v. District of Columbia
404 U.S. App. D.C. 316
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- IDEA Child Find program in DC challenged as systemic failures to identify, locate, evaluate, and provide services to preschoolers with disabilities
- District court certified a Rule 23 class in 2006 (and later recertified in 2011) seeking injunctive relief and reimbursement; district court found commonality, typicality, and 23(b)(2) viability
- District moved for decertification after Wal-Mart; plaintiffs proposed four subclasses focused on specific Child Find failures
- Court held Wal-Mart requires a single, common, “one stroke” question linking all class members’ claims; the broad class lacked such a uniform policy or practice
- Court vacated class certification and related liability/relief orders, remanding for reconsideration of certification (including potential subclasses) and then redetermination of liability and relief
- Remainder concerns implementation of 504/ Rehabilitation Act claims and baseline/compliance framework were noted but not decided on remand
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the certified class meet Rule 23(a)(2) after Wal‑Mart | Plaintiffs—pattern of District failures affects all class members | District—class too broad; lacks a uniform policy linking all claims | No; commonality not satisfied; vacate certification |
| Can subclasses cure commonality post-Wal‑Mart | Subclassing by identified failures can bind class-wide common issues | Subclasses may not salvage Wal‑Mart deficiencies | Remand appropriate to assess whether subclasses satisfy Rule 23(a) commonality |
| Should court vacate liability and relief orders given lack of proper commonality | Cert. process flawed, but systemic relief may still be viable with proper class design | Risks improper relief without proper commonality | Vacate liability and relief orders; remand for reevaluation of certification and relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court, 2011) (requires commonality showing capable of classwide resolution; one-stroke common issue)
- Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Public Schools, 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2012) (supports notion that systemic IDEA claims may be viable with a truly uniform policy)
- McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2012) (post-Wal-Mart viability of class actions based on systemic policies)
- In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg. Lending Practices Litig., 708 F.3d 704 (6th Cir. 2013) (illustrates commonality analysis in complex class actions)
- Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013) (discusses commonality under Wal-Mart in discretionary policy contexts)