Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union v. Quattrone, 1:22-cv-02753

Plaintiffs, several federal credit unions, challenged the retroactive application of New York’s Fair Consumer Judgment Interest Act, which lowered the post-judgment interest rate on consumer debts from 9% to 2%.
Plaintiffs commenced a putative class action against New York’s Attorney General and three county sheriffs, arguing the Act, as applied, was an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.
The Court previously granted a preliminary injunction, partly in favor of Plaintiffs, but limited its scope as Plaintiffs clarified they sought only an "as-applied" challenge.
Plaintiffs delayed moving for class certification under Rule 23 for over two years, despite repeated warnings from the Court to address the issue promptly.
Plaintiffs finally moved for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of all holders of unpaid consumer debt judgments entered before April 30, 2022.
Defendants opposed, arguing the motion was untimely and that Plaintiffs could not meet the requirements for class certification, especially commonality and typicality.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of class certification motion	Filed as soon as practicable given need for expert discovery	Motion was made too late, prejudicing Defendants	Untimely, but would not deny solely on this basis if not for other issues
Ascertainability of class	Class defined by objective criteria based on judgment status and date	Class is vague, includes creditors unaffected by law	Class is ascertainable by objective criteria
Rule 23(a) Commonality	Common questions arise under Penn Central for all class members	Highly individualized facts preclude commonality	Motion fails; commonality not met due to individualized factual inquiries
Rule 23(a) Typicality	All claims arise from same law and theory	Named plaintiffs’ claims not typical due to factual differences among class	Typicality not met; individualized Penn Central analysis required
Rule 23(a) Adequacy	Named plaintiffs have same interest as class, qualified counsel	Plaintiffs lack knowledge of business practices of broader class	Adequacy barely met, but only minimal knowledge required
Rule 23(b)(2)	Single injunctive/declaratory relief would benefit the class	Injunctive relief inappropriate due to individualized harm	Certification inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(2)

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (describing class action as an exception to individual litigation; requirements for Rule 23)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (defining commonality and predominance in class action setting)
Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (setting standard for regulatory takings analysis)
Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (discussing propriety and limits of class actions)
Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931 (standard for typicality in class actions)