DOUGLAS R. BIGELOW TRUST v. United States
1:09-cv-00460
Fed. Cl.Mar 23, 2011Background
- This is a United States Court of Federal Claims class action seeking takings relief under the NTSA/NITU framework for a Michigan rail corridor.
- The Railroad Line runs from milepost 40 (Alma) to milepost 45.5 (Elwell), about 5.5 miles, formerly operated by Mid-Michigan Railroad, Inc. (MMRR).
- Plaintiffs filed on July 7, 2009, alleging the STB issued a NITU on July 29, 2003 that interfered with property interests and effected a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs move to certify a class under RCFC 23; defendant opposes on numerosity and related class-certification grounds.
- Court held that class certification is appropriate, finding numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority satisfied.
- The certified class includes persons with compensable interests in lands along the rail line who claim a taking due to railbanking under the NTSA; certain exclusions apply; notice plan to be filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class meets RCFC 23 requirements | Bigeelow argues numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority are satisfied. | United States contends numerosity and manageability issues, disputing certification. | Yes; all five RCFC 23 criteria satisfied; class certified. |
| Numerosity under RCFC 23(a)(1) | Class likely exceeds 25 members and joinder impracticable; costs deter individual suits. | Numerosity lacks if class is too small; count is insufficient. | Numerosity satisfied; joinder impracticable. |
| Commonality under RCFC 23(a)(2) and predominance under RCFC 23(b)(2) | All claims arise from a single NITU; common legal questions predominate. | Potential variance in damages could defeat predominance. | Common questions predominate; common nucleus of operative facts exists. |
| Typicality under RCFC 23(a)(3) | Named plaintiffs’ claims share essential characteristics with class arising from July 29, 2003 NITU. | Possible factual differences could undermine typicality. | Typicality satisfied; claims derive from same event and interests. |
| Adequacy of representation under RCFC 23(a)(4) and superiority under RCFC 23(b)(3) | Class counsel is experienced; no antagonism among class members. | No explicit contrary arguments presented; not disputed. | Adequacy and superiority satisfied; class actions efficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (class actions are an exception to the usual rule)
- Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (standard for class-action prerequisites)
- Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (putative class members may opt in post-certification under 2501)
- Fauvergue v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 82 (2009) (guidance on RCFC 23 comprehension)
- Barnes v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 492 (2005) (five-factor framework for class certification analysis)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (fractions of class actions; requirements for certification)
- Curry v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 328 (2008) (common nucleus of operative facts acceptable with variations)
- Singleton v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 78 (2010) (no fixed numeric trigger for numerosity)
- Franconia Assocs. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 335 (2004) (constructs for joinder and class actions in federal context)