272 F.R.D. 274
D. Me.2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed in 2009 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against DHHS for NHRA, ADA, and Section 504 violations related to care in nursing facilities and community settings.
- Amended complaint defines a class including Maine residents enrolled in MaineCare, 21+, with related conditions (excluding autism) and potential PASRR-related screening issues.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, with class certification pending a Rule 23 analysis.
- DHHS opposed class certification, arguing issues of numerosity, commonality, and typicality were not satisfied.
- Court conducted a rigorous Rule 23 analysis and granted class certification under Rule 23(a) and one element of Rule 23(b)(2).
- Court concluded the class satisfies numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and that 23(b)(2) relief is appropriate for systemic, agency-wide relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity satisfied | Plaintiffs show at least 40+ identifiable members and future members. | Number unidentified; class may be speculative and not practicable to joinder. | Numerosity satisfied; class large enough and joinder impracticable. |
| Commonality satisfied | Common questions about DHHS's systemic failures, including PASRR evaluations and overall care standards. | Some relief would be individualized; lack of common impact. | Common questions exist; PASRR and systemic DHHS conduct are common to class. |
| Typicality satisfied | Named Plaintiffs’ claims arise from DHHS conduct affecting all class members under the same legal theory. | Named Plaintiffs’ age and conditions differ from unnamed members; claims not typical. | Typicality satisfied; deviations in conditions do not destroy typical claims to federal standards of care. |
| Adequacy of representation | Named Plaintiffs will vigorously represent class; adequate counsel already engaged. | Not challenged; adequacy remains to be independently evaluated. | Adequacy satisfied; counsel qualified and interests aligned with class. |
| Rule 23(b)(2) certified class | Civil rights context supports 23(b)(2) for declaratory/injunctive relief affecting the class. | 23(b)(2) not satisfied due to lack of commonality and relief scope. | 23(b)(2) satisfied; systemic relief appropriate for the class as a whole. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia-Rubiera v. Calderon, 570 F.3d 443 (1st Cir.2009) (recognizes numerosity threshold guidance and class considerations)
- Yaffe v. Powers, 454 F.2d 1362 (1st Cir.1972) (class certification guidance for 23(b)(2) notice considerations)
- Rolland v. Cellucci, 1999 WL 34815562 (D.Mass.1999) (cited for Rule 23(b)(2) handling and non-precise membership implications)
- Rancourt v. Concannon, 207 F.R.D. 14 (D.Me.2002) (class action standards and adequacy considerations in Me. district court)
- Risinger ex rel. Risinger v. Concannon, 201 F.R.D. 16 (D.Me.2001) (systemic relief and class action manageability guidance)
- In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, 522 F.3d 6 (1st Cir.2008) (rigorous analysis standard for class certification)
- Smilow v. Southwest Bell Mobile Sys., Inc., 323 F.3d 32 (1st Cir.2003) (rigorous analysis required for class certification)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of NW v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980) (numerosity and class action framework guidance)
- Dionne v. Bouley, 757 F.2d 1344 (1st Cir.1985) (civil rights class action context and relief considerations)