In Re: District of Columbia
416 U.S. App. D.C. 435
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs are D.C. Medicaid beneficiaries confined in nursing facilities who sued the District under Olmstead (ADA Title II and §504) seeking community-based services as the most integrated setting.
- Plaintiffs alleged systemic deficiencies in the District’s transition/ discharge planning and in providing information/ meaningful choice about community-based alternatives.
- The District Court denied the District’s motions to dismiss and certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class; Plaintiffs’ operative complaint listed specific common questions (including two alleged systemic deficiencies).
- The District filed a Rule 23(f) petition asking this court for permission to appeal class certification, arguing certification was manifestly erroneous post-Wal‑Mart and inconsistent with this circuit’s DL decision.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed only the narrow Rule 23(f) ground the District invoked — that the certification was “manifestly erroneous” — and denied permission to appeal, without reaching the merits of the substantive Olmstead claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 23(a)(2) commonality was satisfied | The class shares common, systemic questions (e.g., deficiencies in transition assistance and failures to inform/provide meaningful choice) that can be resolved classwide | Wal‑Mart and DL preclude a common-question finding absent a single policy/practice common to all class members | Denied interlocutory review — court held the District Court did not manifestly err in finding at least some common questions suitable for classwide resolution |
| Whether class representatives are typical (Rule 23(a)(3)) | Representatives’ injuries typify class because they arise from the same systemic deficiencies | Typicality fails if harms are too individualized and not common across class members | Denied interlocutory review — court treated this as essentially a recharacterization of the commonality argument and found no manifest error |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive/declaratory relief is appropriate | Relief is individualized, so (b)(2) is inappropriate | (b)(2) suits are suitable in civil-rights/Olmstead cases where a classwide policy causes segregation | Denied interlocutory review — court found (b)(2) certification for civil-rights remedies was not a manifest error |
| Whether the District Court’s certification decision is a "manifest error" warranting Rule 23(f) review | Certification is plainly inconsistent with controlling precedent (Wal‑Mart, DL) and therefore manifestly erroneous | Certification was debatable but not plainly and indisputably wrong; the District Court identified at least two common systemic questions | Permission to appeal under Rule 23(f) denied — the D.C. Circuit held the District failed to meet the high manifest-error standard |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 289 F.3d 98 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (articulating grounds for Rule 23(f) interlocutory review)
- In re Veneman, 309 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (discussing Rule 23(f) standards)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requires a question capable of classwide resolution)
- DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (applying Wal‑Mart to deny certification where class lacked the necessary common question)
- In re Johnson, 760 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting difficulty of meeting manifest-error standard under Rule 23(f))
- Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (holding unjustified segregation of persons with disabilities can violate the ADA)
- Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) (recognizing Rule 23(b)(2) as appropriate for civil-rights class relief)