60 F.4th 437
9th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Sylvester Owino and Jonathan Gomez brought a class action alleging CoreCivic compelled civil immigration detainees (held solely for immigration reasons) to perform facility labor beyond ICE’s minimal "personal housekeeping" duties, often unpaid or paid only ~$1/day, in violation of federal and California trafficking and labor laws.
- ICE Standards permit only limited personal housekeeping and a voluntary paid Work Program; CoreCivic’s written sanitation and discipline policies require broader cleaning duties and authorize punishment for refusal.
- Plaintiffs sought five classes; the district court certified three: (1) California Labor Law Class, (2) California Forced Labor Class, and (3) National Forced Labor Class, finding common policies and class-wide issues predominated and class litigation was superior.
- On appeal CoreCivic challenged certification on grounds including insufficient proof of a class-wide policy, failure of commonality/predominance, statute-of-limitations problems, and lack of personal jurisdiction over nationwide claims.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed certification of all three classes, upholding the district court’s factual findings and Rule 23 analyses, but remanded only the personal-jurisdiction issue for the National Forced Labor class (CoreCivic retains that defense).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a class-wide forced-labor policy (commonality) for California Forced Labor class | CoreCivic’s corporate sanitation and discipline policies plus detainee declarations show a uniform policy coercing cleaning beyond ICE Standards | Evidence is insufficient—only a few declarations and a facial policy do not prove implementation or class-wide coercion | Affirmed: written policies + detainee statements + manager admissions constitute significant proof of a class-wide policy supporting commonality |
| Predominance of common questions for forced-labor classes | Company-wide policies create central common issues (whether threats of discipline coerced detainees), suitable for class-wide proof | Claims require individualized inquiries (e.g., subjective elements of TVPA), so individual issues predominate | Affirmed: central common issues predominate; statutory language and precedent permit objective/class-wide proof (e.g., reasonable-person standard) |
| Whether class period should be narrowed for statute-of-limitations | Class-period issues can be addressed later; UCL provides remedies for many wage claims so certification need not be narrowed now | Many state-law claims are time-barred as to named plaintiffs; class should be narrowed accordingly | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion by declining to narrow the class at certification; statute-of-limitations defenses may be addressed later |
| Personal jurisdiction over non-California members of National Forced Labor class | Nationwide certification appropriate; CoreCivic waived jurisdictional challenge | CoreCivic lacks personal jurisdiction over claims tied to non-California facilities | Class certification stands, but reversed remand: CoreCivic retains personal-jurisdiction defense; remanded to district court to resolve at the appropriate time |
Key Cases Cited
- B.K. ex rel. Tinsley v. Snyder, 922 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for class‑certification decisions; legal error then abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Sali v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr., 909 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion framework and review of district-court factual findings)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (significant‑proof/commonality requirement)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016) (predominance: common, aggregation‑enabling issues can justify class treatment despite individual questions)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (class must satisfy Rule 23(b) predominance and damages methodology requirements)
- Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) (company‑wide policies can establish commonality in detention/prison cases)
- Moser v. Benefytt, Inc., 8 F.4th 872 (9th Cir. 2021) (availability of Rule 12(b)(2) personal‑jurisdiction defense prior to certification)
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (limits on personal jurisdiction over out‑of‑state plaintiffs)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (district courts may modify certification in light of later developments)