889 F. Supp. 2d 462
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Defendants Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, MTA, Walder, and Ferrara seek reconsideration of Oct. 5, 2011 order certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class.
- Toll policy discounts apply to Verrazano-Narrows, Cross Bay, and Marine Parkway bridges for Staten Island, Rockaway Peninsula, Broad Channel residents; discount requires E-ZPass.
- Plaintiffs are E-ZPass users across NY, PA, NJ, CT who paid nondiscounted tolls and challenge constitutional provisions and NY Const.
- Judge Jones certified an injunctive class for federal claims; bifurcated liability (injunctive) phase from damages phase; standing not addressed.
- Defendants move to exclude three categories lacking standing: current residents of the discounted areas, non-drivers or license-less individuals, and those who haven’t crossed the bridges in the past two years.
- Court grants reconsideration to narrow the Rule 23(b)(2) class to those with standing for injunctive/declaratory relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 23(b)(2) class must be narrowed for Article III standing. | Plaintiffs argue standing exists for injunctive relief. | Defendants contend many class members lack standing for injunctive relief. | Yes; the class is narrowed to those with credible future injury. |
| Whether current class definition includes lacking-standing individuals. | Plaintiffs rely on broader class for potential damages. | Defendants identify three categories lacking imminent injury. | Held: exclude those lacking standing (current residents, non-drivers, no bridge crossings in last two years). |
| Whether standing requirements should govern the injunctive class scope post-Wal-Mart. | Plainly, Wal-Mart affects class certification standards. | Wal-Mart requires standing to be satisfied for injunctive relief. | Standing must govern class scope; reconsideration warranted to align with standing. |
| Whether the revised class definition adequately protects both sides' interests. | Revised class covers those with ongoing injury concerns. | Excluding certain members prevents misapplication of injunctive relief. | Yes; class narrowed accordingly to avoid overbreadth. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing requirement for injunctive relief; actual or imminent injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements; injury, causation, redressability)
- Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490 (1975) (general standing requirements for federal jurisdiction)
- Lyons v. City of New York, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (actual and imminent injury; standing in class actions)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (impact of Wal-Mart on class action standing and certification)
- Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253 (2006) (standing in class actions; required for some plaintiffs)
- Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (each class member must have standing in related claims)