Douglas R. Bigelow Trust v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 674
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiffs move to certify this railroad-right-of-way takings case as a class action under RCFC 23.
- Lawsuit concerns a 5.5-mile rail corridor from milepost 40 (Alma) to milepost 45.5 (Elwell), Michigan.
- NITU issued July 29, 2003 by the STB, enabling rail-banking with Heartland Trail, affecting private land interests.
- Plaintiffs allege Fifth Amendment takings due to the NITU and NTSA railbanking regime.
- Court applies RCFC 23(a) and (b) five-factor framework (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, superiority).
- Court grants certification, defining the class and ordering a status report by April 25, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action may be maintained as a class action | Plaintiffs: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, superiority met. | Defendant: challenges numerosity and manageability; otherwise objects not raised. | Yes; RCFC 23 criteria satisfied; certification granted. |
| Numerosity under RCFC 23(a)(1) | Class Likely exceeds 25 members; joinder impracticable. | Class too small numerically. | Numerosity satisfied; no fixed magic number; costs justify class treatment. |
| Commonality under RCFC 23(a)(2) (and predominance under 23(b)) | All claims arise from a single NITU; common questions predominate. | Disagreement over individual recoveries undermines commonality. | Common questions predominate; core issue is whether NITU a taking. |
| Typicality under RCFC 23(a)(3) | Named plaintiffs' claims share essential characteristics with class. | Potential differences in land interests could affect typicality. | Typicality satisfied; claims arise from land subject to July 29, 2003 NITU. |
| Adequacy of representation under RCFC 23(a)(4) and (4) | Class counsel experienced; no antagonistic class interests. | Not raised; adequacy not contested beyond counsel qualifications. | Adequacy satisfied; counsel qualified; no antagonism. |
| Superiority under RCFC 23(b)(2) (and overall RCFC 23(b)) | Class action efficient; uniform defenses and law; economies of scale. | Not explicitly essential to challenge superior method. | Superiority satisfied; class action is the fairest method. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (class action exception to ordinary litigation)
- Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (class action precedent for certification standards)
- Quinault Ass'n v. United States, 453 F.2d 1272 (Ct. Cl. 1972) (framework influencing RCFC 23 before control by RCFC 23)
- Fauvergue v. United States, 86 Fed.Cl. 82 (2009) (analysis under RCFC 23 in FTC-like context)
- Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (opt-in after limitations period permitted in class actions)
- Barnes v. United States, 68 Fed.Cl. 492 (2005) (grouping RCFC 23(a) and (b) factors; importance of typicality and adequacy)
- Adams v. United States, 93 Fed.Cl. 563 (2010) (factors for class action certification in federal Claims)
- Testwuide v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 755 (2003) (conjunctive RCFC 23 requirements; burden on plaintiff)
- Singleton v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl. 78 (2010) (no fixed numerosity threshold; case-specific analysis)
- Rasmuson v. United States, 91 Fed.Cl. 204 (2010) (numerosity and class action considerations in rail-to-trails)