Hensley v. SCDSSHensley v. SCDSS
VACATED AND DISMISSED
Timothy Ryan Langley and Charles J. Hodge, Hodge & Langley Law Firm, PC; and James Fletcher Thompson, James Fletcher Thompson, LLC; all of Spartanburg, for Petitioner.
JUSTICE FEW: Kenneth and Angela Hensley filed this lawsuit against the South Carolina Department of Social Services on behalf of their adopted minor child BLH and a class of approximately 4000 similarly situated adopted children. The central allegation of the lawsuit is that DSS breached an Adoption Subsidy Agreement with the parents of each member of the class by reducing each parent‘s adoption subsidy by $20 a month, beginning in 2002. The circuit court issued an order finding the Hensleys satisfied the requirements of
I. Facts and Procedural History
BLH was born on February 20, 1997. DSS placed her in foster care with the Hensleys in April 1997. The Hensleys received a foster care maintenance subsidy of $675 per month from DSS through the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. See
In June 2002, the acting director of DSS notified foster and adoptive parents by letter that DSS would reduce all federally funded monthly foster care maintenance and adoption subsidies by $20. In 2004, DSS restored the $20 for foster care maintenance subsidies but not for adoption subsidies.
In 2011, the Hensleys filed a class action lawsuit in state court against DSS and its director alleging a violation of the Contract Clause (art. I, § 10) of the United States Constitution and civil rights violations under
The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Hensley v. Koller, 722 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2013). The court found that when DSS reduced foster care maintenance subsidies in 2002, it was required by federal law to also reduce adoption subsidies. 722 F.3d at 183 (citing
While the federal case was on appeal at the Fourth Circuit, on April 1, 2013, the Hensleys filed this breach of contract action in state court in Spartanburg County. They claimed DSS breached the Adoption Subsidy Agreement by reducing the monthly cash payments in 2002, and by not increasing the
In the September 2014 order, the circuit court required “Defendant shall serve on each class member a Notice of Class Action.” The court later granted DSS‘s
DSS appealed the September 2014 order before the circuit court ruled on DSS‘s
II. Immediate Appealability
As the court of appeals correctly recognized, class certification orders are ordinarily not immediately appealable. 423 S.C. at 428, 814 S.E.2d at 641 (quoting Salmonsen v. CGD, Inc., 377 S.C. 442, 448, 661 S.E.2d 81, 85 (2008)); see also Knowles v. Standard Sav. & Loan Ass‘n, 274 S.C. 58, 59, 261 S.E.2d 49, 49 (1979) (rejecting the argument “class certification is a decision on the merits and affects substantial rights, therefore, appealable by virtue of
The factual basis for the court of appeals’ holding is that there may be adopted children in the class whose parents made a conscious decision not to tell them they are adopted. The court reasoned that when notice of the class is given to these parents—or to their child if she has reached majority—the child will learn she is adopted. 423 S.C. at 429, 814 S.E.2d at 642. As the court of appeals recognized, the law protects the confidentiality of this information. See
The legal basis for the court of appeals’ holding comes from Doe v. Howe. In that case, our court of appeals allowed an immediate appeal of a pretrial order denying permission to a plaintiff to proceed anonymously in a civil case involving allegations the plaintiff was the victim of sexual assault as a child. The Doe court focused on the nature of the specific information the plaintiff sought to keep confidential, 362 S.C. at 217-19, 607 S.E.2d at 356-57, and in particular the “social stigmatization” and “embarrassment and humiliation” the plaintiff “understandably seeks to avoid,” 362 S.C. at 219, 607 S.E.2d at 357. The Doe court turned to federal precedent on the narrow question before it—whether a pretrial order denying a plaintiff permission to proceed anonymously is immediately appealable. 362 S.C. at 216, 607 S.E.2d at 356-57 (citing James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 238 (4th Cir. 1993)). Based on the specific facts of the case (the plaintiff was a child sexual assault victim), and the narrow issue the court faced (the plaintiff sought to pursue the case anonymously), the Doe court found the order immediately appealable.
DSS argues the immediate appealability of the class certification order is also supported by Ex parte Capital U-Drive-It. The court of appeals relied on the case. 423 S.C. at 429, 814 S.E.2d at 642. In Ex parte Capital U-Drive-It, the plaintiff brought a civil embezzlement action in circuit court against a recent family court litigant. 369 S.C. at 4, 630 S.E.2d at 466. In the course of discovery in the circuit court action, the plaintiff sought to unseal the family court record so it could “review and copy all information in the file pertaining to [the civil defendant]‘s financial affairs.” 369 S.C. at 4-5, 630 S.E.2d at 466. The circuit court plaintiff filed the motion to unseal the record in family court. Id. The family court granted the motion to unseal the record and permitted the circuit court plaintiff to inspect it. 369 S.C. at 5, 630 S.E.2d at 466. We found the family court order was appealable because “it is a final order issued by the family court which stands separate and apart from the civil lawsuit.” 369 S.C. at 6, 630 S.E.2d at 467. Because our decision in Ex parte Capital U-Drive-It
Whether this Court should extend the reasoning of Doe to allow immediate appeals of orders other than those denying a child sexual assault victim‘s request to proceed anonymously in a civil lawsuit is an important question. For the reasons we will explain, however, we decline to address the question until the actual danger of disclosure of confidential information is squarely before the Court.
This is, in fact, the second reason we disagree with the court of appeals and find the class certification order in this case is not immediately appealable. Neither the parties, the circuit court, the court of appeals, nor this Court has any certainty of whether a disclosure of confidential information is even at stake in this case. The amended class certification order requires the Hensleys to prepare a notice for the circuit court‘s approval that will protect the confidentiality concerns raised by DSS. Until the circuit court has a chance to evaluate the proposed notice and hear from the parties as to how confidential information will be protected—or how it may be compromised—nobody knows whether any confidential information is actually put at risk in this case.
The third reason we disagree with the court of appeals—on immediate appealability—relates to the requirements a class action plaintiff must satisfy to establish commonality under
Under
Though our
The commonality requirement [of
Rule 23(a), SCRCP ,] is a condition of class action status, but the existence of common questions alone is not sufficient.... [T]he class action must be a better procedural mechanism for resolving the litigation than named joinder or separate litigation. UnderFed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) , this is reflected in the requirement that the common questions predominate over individual issues.Although not specifically required by this Rule, it is inherent in the general conditions for class actions. The Court should first determine the existence of common questions, and then whether they are sufficient[ly] central to justify the class action.
Harry M. Lightsey & James F. Flanagan, South Carolina Civil Procedure 199 (1st ed. 1985); see also Gardner, 353 S.C. at 22, 577 S.E.2d at 201 (reversing the circuit court‘s certification of a class because “the factual differences are the crux of a predominant legal issue,” and stating, “A representative class cannot exist where the court must investigate each plaintiff‘s claim where it is one of the two predominate issues in the case. Requiring such individualized examination negates the benefits of a class action suit“); McGann, 287 S.C. at 568, 340 S.E.2d at 158 (stating “commonality is a judgment that the issues are sufficiently similar so that the class action will be a more efficient means of resolving the problem, even though some individual issues may be litigated in any event” (quoting Lightsey & Flanagan, supra at 198)).
In this case, the circuit court correctly identified two issues common to the claims of all class members. However, the court has not yet determined which issues might need individualized trials or hearings. There are several potentially significant issues that may require individual treatment. For example, DSS contends each class member was required to appeal DSS‘s decision to reduce the monthly cash payments through the administrative appeals process. See Stinney v. Sumter Sch. Dist. 17, 391 S.C. 547, 550 n.1, 707 S.E.2d 397, 398 n.1 (2011) (“exhaustion of administrative remedies applies when a litigant invokes the original jurisdiction of the circuit court to adjudicate a claim based upon a statutory violation for which the legislature has provided an administrative remedy“);
The exhaustion of administrative remedies question DSS raises is not whether the Hensleys or any particular class member‘s parents completed the administrative appeals process. That would be a question addressed to the merits. Rather, DSS raises the question of what process—if any—the circuit court must go through to answer that merits question. If the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies does not apply in this case, then the court would have to go through no individualized process. If the requirement does apply, however, the circuit court may have to conduct individual trials or hearings. The circuit court did not address this question, and the question is not before this Court at this time. The answer to the question will nevertheless affect whether this case is appropriate for class treatment.
The court of appeals identified other issues that may require individualized trials or hearings. See id. (identifying the following issues—“whether each set of adoptive parents accepted or consented to the reduction in payments, entered into renewal agreements, or at any pertinent time terminated their agreements“—that “will require individualized inquiry“). DSS raises the additional question of whether the calculation of damages requires significant individual treatment, or—as the Hensleys contend—the damages can be calculated by simple formula. All of these questions relate directly to whether the circuit court will ultimately permit this lawsuit to be maintained as a class action. See Salmonsen, 377 S.C. at 454, 661 S.E.2d at 88 (“class certification may be altered at any time prior to a decision on the merits“).
III. Conclusion
We find under the circumstances of this case that the class certification order is not immediately appealable. We vacate the opinion of the court of appeals and dismiss this appeal.
BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN and JAMES, JJ., concur.
Notes
369 S.C. at 7-8, 630 S.E.2d at 468. Second, we addressed the question of whether the disclosure of confidential information by itself rendered the order immediately appealable. We stated,the order issued by the family court unsealing the record determined a substantial matter forming the whole or part of the family court proceeding in which [the civil plaintiff] sought access to the record of the . . . divorce. No further action is required in the family court to determine the parties’ rights; therefore, the order is immediately appealable under Section 14-3-330(1).
369 S.C. at 8, 630 S.E.2d at 468.we agree with courts which have been inclined to find such an order immediately appealable because, after a court file is unsealed and the information released, no appellate remedy is likely to repair any damage done by an improper disclosure.