282 F.R.D. 360
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Putative class action against City of New York and NYPD alleging a policy or practice of issuing summonses without probable cause to meet a quota.
- Two-stage Citywide Summons Operation reviews summonses for defects and facial sufficiency; facial sufficiency related to probable cause.
- OCA data shows substantial pre-arraignment dismissals for defective and facial insufficiency summonses; defendants dispute conclusions.
- Tape recordings and an arbitration award are offered as evidence of a quota-driven enforcement culture.
- Court defines a citywide class limited to summonses dismissed for lack of probable cause at the facial insufficiency stage; presumptive members may be challenged as to lack of probable cause.
- Plaintiffs move for class certification under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3); motion granted with defined class representatives and counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class meets Rule 23(a) requirements | Stinson et al. show numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy | Defendants contend deficiencies in commonality and ascertainability | Yes; the class meets Rule 23(a) and ascertainability requirements |
| Whether the class is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) | Requests declaratory and injunctive relief against a citywide policy | Dukes limits (b)(2) when monetary relief predominates | Yes for declaratory/injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) while monetary claims proceed under 23(b)(3) |
| Whether the class is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) for money damages | Common liability issues predominate; a single policy caused injuries | Individual inquiries would be required for probable cause in each instance | Yes; common questions predominate and class is superior for money damages under 23(b)(3) |
| Whether the class definition is appropriate given facial insufficiency/probable cause | Class should include summonses dismissed for lack of probable cause | Ascertainability requires precise boundaries; too broad | Class defined to include summonses dismissed for lack of probable cause at facial insufficiency stage; presumptives may be challenged |
| Whether standing and injury support injunctive relief given Dukes and related standards | Past harms and risk of future similar harms support standing | Future harms must be concrete/likely, not speculative | OK to certify for injunctive relief under 23(b)(2) given ongoing risk and policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution; Dukes limits (b)(2) when monetary relief dominates)
- In re IPO, 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006) (preponderance standard; governs Rule 23 determinations; overlap with merits allowed)
- Brown v. Kelly, 609 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirmed citywide class where common policy alleged; dangers of mini-trials limited)
- Casale v. Kelly, 257 F.R.D. 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (ascertainability and manageability; rejects easily ascertainable membership attack)
- Robinson v. City of New York, 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) (typicality/commonality linkage; common theory of liability)
- Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011) (plaintiff proof of classwide injury under Rule 23; predominance considerations)