Harris v. Rainey
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12801
W.D. Va.2014Background
- Four plaintiffs (two same-sex couples) challenged Virginia laws that prohibit same-sex marriage and refuse recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages; defendants are state vital records registrar and a circuit court clerk.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and later to amend the class definition into two subclasses: (1) same-sex couples in Virginia who have not married elsewhere, and (2) same-sex couples in Virginia who married in another jurisdiction.
- Court conducted the required rigorous Rule 23(a) analysis (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(2) analysis for injunctive/declaratory relief.
- Defendants argued against certification based on numerosity data reliability, lack of commonality/ascertainability/cohesion, the so-called necessity doctrine, and that some defendants’ acts did not apply generally to all class members.
- Plaintiffs agreed to exclude four plaintiffs who filed a parallel suit (Bostic v. McDonnell); the court ordered those individuals excluded to avoid conflict.
- Court granted leave to amend the class definition, found the amended class ascertainable and cohesive, and certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2), appointing the named plaintiffs and their counsel as class representatives/counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity | Census and reasonably inferable data show large class; joinder impracticable | Census/data unreliable; estimate incorrect | Numerosity satisfied (2010 Census + practical examples suffice) |
| Commonality & Typicality | Claims seek identical declaratory/injunctive relief attacking same law; classwide resolution possible | Class definition allegedly subjective/individualized | Commonality and typicality satisfied; amended definition cures subjectivity concerns |
| Adequacy & Potential Conflict with Bostic plaintiffs | Named plaintiffs and counsel can fairly represent class; will exclude Bostic plaintiffs to avoid conflict | Certification would interfere with Bostic plaintiffs' litigation strategy; conflict of litigation theory | Adequacy satisfied; court excludes Bostic plaintiffs from class to resolve conflict |
| Rule 23(b)(2) / Necessity doctrine | Civil-rights injunctive suit fits Rule 23(b)(2); injunction would apply generally; mootness concerns support class certification | Class certification unnecessary under "necessity" doctrine when relief for one would bind all; some defendants act differently toward subsets | Rule 23(b)(2) satisfied: necessity doctrine not dispositive; defendant actions apply generally to class; class amenable to uniform injunctive/declaratory relief |
| Ascertainability & Cohesiveness | Class members can be identified by objective events (marriage-license applications or requests for recognition); relief is indivisible | Whether two persons constitute a “couple” is subjective; many same-sex couples may not want to marry, making class non-cohesive | Class is ascertainable (implementation and identification straightforward) and cohesive (injunctive relief indivisible among members) |
Key Cases Cited
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (civil-rights class actions and Rule 23(b)(2) purpose explained)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality standard for class actions)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Rule 23’s categorical entitlement to class treatment where criteria met)
- Thom v. Jefferson‑Pilot Life Ins. Co., 445 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. 2006) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis and civil‑rights context for Rule 23(b)(2))
- Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2003) (numerosity and typicality discussion)
- Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2006) (typicality and overlap with commonality)
- Sandford v. R.L. Coleman Realty Co., Inc., 573 F.2d 173 (4th Cir. 1978) (discussed in context of necessity/mootness doctrines)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (noting mootness concerns and utility of class certification)