283 F.R.D. 20
D.D.C.2012Background
- Hardy and Monts sue the District of Columbia for cash forfeiture without adequate notice under D.C. Code § 48-905.02 and the Fifth Amendment.
- Plaintiffs previously moved for class certification; earlier definitions were rejected for being imprecise and incomplete.
- Plaintiffs revise the class definitions to two proposed classes: the Failed Notice Class and the Incarcerated Persons Class.
- Failed Notice Class includes individuals arrested by MPD, cash seized, case concluded after June 8, 2006 (or after June 8, 2005 if released without charge), and District mailed an administrative forfeiture notice by Oct 28, 2009 without a signed receipt and no additional notice.
- Incarcerated Persons Class includes individuals similar to above but incarcerated at the time of mailing and held by the DC Department of Corrections, with additional notice and timing criteria.
- Court grants class certification after concluding the proposed classes meet Rule 23 requirements and ascertainability is satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity | Plaintiffs meet numerosity via up to ~2,000 potential class members in 2009 alone. | District challenges precise numbers and practical feasibility of joinder. | Numerosity satisfied; joinder impracticable. |
| Commonality | Common questions about District's notice practices apply to all class members. | Variations among members could undermine common questions. | Common questions predominate across proposed classes. |
| Typicality | Hardy and Monts claims arise from the same practice of defective notice as other class members. | Differences in notice received could render claims non-typical. | Claims are typical for both proposed classes. |
| Adequacy | Named plaintiffs and counsel will vigorously prosecute the case without conflicts. | No specific adequacy concerns raised beyond general assertions. | Adequacy satisfied. |
| Predominance and Superiority under Rule 23(b)(3) | Common questions predominate; class action is superior due to many small claims and uniform issues. | Individual inquiries may be necessary; predominance uncertain under prior definition. | Predominance satisfied and class action superior. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Chilcott, 522 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2007) (numerosity and commonality guidance for class certification)
- Pigford v. Glickman, 182 F.R.D. 341 (D.D.C. 1998) (numerosity and class action standards in DC)
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (importance of predominance and commonality in class action)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (notice deficiency and reasonable steps after undelivered notice)
- Small v. United States, 136 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (notice to incarcerated individuals and due process obligations)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1985) (class treatment for small claims and economic feasibility)
- Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society, 275 F.R.D. 346 (D.D.C. 2011) (mini-trial considerations and damages in class actions)
- Cohen v. Chilcott, 522 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2007) (reiteration of criteria for class certification)