Kayla Willis v. City of Seattle, 943 F.3d 882

The City of Seattle adopted MDAR 08-01 (2008) and later MDAR 17-01 (2017) setting procedures for removing unauthorized encampments; WSDOT issued similar Guidelines for state right-of-way.
Four unhoused individuals (Willis et al.) sued on behalf of ~2,000 similarly situated persons, alleging City/WSDOT "sweeps" destroyed personal property in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and parallel Washington constitutional provisions.
Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the alleged sweep practices; the district court found numerosity but denied certification for lack of commonality and a uniform, class-wide practice.
Plaintiffs submitted many declarations, photos, and videos but (by their own admission) acknowledged that "each sweep is different," and they did not identify a single written policy application that uniformly caused the alleged injuries in the class-certification motion.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification, holding plaintiffs failed to proffer sufficient evidence of a common, uniform practice and did not properly present a facial challenge in the certification motion; Judge Christen concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing the facial claims were pleaded and the district court should have addressed them and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs met Rule 23(a) commonality	Plaintiffs: "sweeps" follow policies/practices that destroy property and raise common constitutional questions	City/WSDOT: sweeps vary; no single uniform practice or injury across class	Court: No commonality; certification properly denied
Whether plaintiffs raised a facial challenge to MDAR/WSDOT Guidelines	Plaintiffs: policies fail on their face (vague, give too much discretion, $100 destruction rule)	Defendants: plaintiffs advanced as-applied claims and did not present a facial challenge in the certification motion	Court: Plaintiffs did not properly present a facial challenge for Rule 23(a); court will not rewrite their argument
Sufficiency of evidence showing a systemic practice of unconstitutional sweeps	Plaintiffs: voluminous anecdotal evidence, declarations, videos show pattern	Defendants: evidence shows sporadic, different practices; not systemic or uniform	Court: Evidence insufficient to show a uniform, class-wide unlawful practice
Whether district court erred by not ruling on facial claims (concurrence/dissent issue)	Judge Christen: facial claims were pleaded and argued; district court should have ruled and remanded if needed	Majority: facial challenges were not properly presented on the certification motion; district court could defer merits	Held: Majority affirmed; Christen would remand for district court consideration of facial claims

Parra v. Bashas', [citation="536 F.3d 975"] (9th Cir. 2008) (standard: abuse-of-discretion review of class-certification orders)
Molski v. Gleich, [citation="318 F.3d 937"] (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 23 principles in Ninth Circuit class-cert context)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, [citation="564 U.S. 338"] (2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of class‑wide resolution)
Parsons v. Ryan, [citation="754 F.3d 657"] (9th Cir. 2014) (systemic policies/practices can be the "glue" supporting class claims)
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, [citation="576 U.S. 409"] (2015) (definition and standards for facial challenges)
Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, [citation="847 F.3d 1108"] (9th Cir. 2017) (plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate Rule 23 requirements)
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, [citation="552 U.S. 442"] (2008) (courts should avoid broader constitutional rulings than necessary)
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, [citation="568 U.S. 455"] (2013) (limited merits inquiry at certification stage)
Mathews v. Eldridge, [citation="424 U.S. 319"] (1976) (due process balancing framework)
Edwards v. First Am. Corp., [citation="798 F.3d 1172"] (9th Cir. 2015) (legal errors in class-certification orders can be per se abuses of discretion)