M.D. Ex Rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832

Background

Named Plaintiffs, nine children in Texas's Permanent Managing Conservatorship, sued Texas officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged systemic failures in the PMC.
The district court certified a class of all children now and to be in Texas's PMC; Texas appealed challenging Rule 23 compliance and 23(b)(2) cohesiveness.
The court of appeals reviews class certification de novo for legal standards and for abuse of discretion on the district court’s factual findings.
The district court's analysis relied on pre-Wal-Mart law, treating commonality as not demanding and focusing on systemic deficiencies as class-wide basis.
The Fifth Circuit vacates the class certification for failure to perform a rigorous Wal-Mart-compliant analysis and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) post-Wal-Mart?	M.D. argued common questions exist across class due to systemic DFPS deficiencies.	Texas contends no single common contention can resolve class claims; many individualized issues exist.	district court failed to satisfy Wal-Mart standard; failed to show a common contention capable of classwide resolution.
Common questions of law central to all claims?	Claims share a legal basis challenging overall scheme for child welfare services.	Legal claims are too generalized; lack discrete common legal questions that would drive one-stroke resolution.	district court's common questions of law were too broad and not shown to resolve central issues for all class members.
Rule 23(b)(2) cohesiveness and uniform injunctive relief?	Most relief would benefit all class members; systemic improvements suffice.	Injunctive relief would require individualized remedies and some class members would need tailored relief.	class cannot be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) due to individualized relief and lack of uniform injunctive remedy.
Potential need for subclasses on remand?	Subclassing could cure commonality issues by isolating discrete claims.	Not addressed; may still fail even with subclasses if overall claims lack commonality.	district court should consider subclasses on remand with rigorous Rule 23 analysis.
Impact of Wal-Mart guidance on pre-existing rulings?	Wal-Mart reasoning should not undermine prior plausible certifications absent rigorous analysis.	Wal-Mart sets higher standard requiring explicit, classwide resolution potential.	Wal-Mart requires rigorous, explicit analysis; pre-Wal-Mart rationale insufficient.

Key Cases Cited

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (rigorous analysis and Rule 23 explanations underpin class certification)
Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (pre-Wal-Mart formulation of commonality; broad questions insufficient)
Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Found., 493 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2007) (rigorous analysis required; commonality analysis intertwined with merits)
Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 994 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1993) (commonality requires a common question capable of classwide resolution)
Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) (recognizes class-wide claims in child welfare contexts)
James v. City of Dallas, 254 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2001) (early view on commonality; not required to be identical claims)
DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2010) (case law on class certification and systemic claims; acknowledged in decision)
Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1997) (subclassing approach for complex child welfare claims)
Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Schs., 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2012) (limits on 23(b)(2) when individualized relief would be required)
Shook v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 543 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 2008) (limitations on Rule 23(b)(2) when relief is individualized)