{"id":673,"date":"2023-07-19T19:31:48","date_gmt":"2023-07-19T23:31:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=673"},"modified":"2023-07-19T19:31:48","modified_gmt":"2023-07-19T23:31:48","slug":"d-c-circuit-issues-a-how-to-ruling-regarding-issue-certification-for-rule-23-class-actions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/07\/19\/d-c-circuit-issues-a-how-to-ruling-regarding-issue-certification-for-rule-23-class-actions\/","title":{"rendered":"D.C. Circuit Issues A \u00a0\u201cHow-To\u201d Ruling Regarding Issue Certification For Rule 23 Class Actions"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Rebecca S. Bjork<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/i>:<\/strong> On July 18, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled <\/a>that district courts must analyze the predominance and superiority requirements for certification of a class action when considering an \u201cissue class\u201d under Rule 23(c).\u00a0 In Harris v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc., No. 22-7033 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2023), the three-judge panel ruled that the district court erred when it certified an \u201cissue\u201d class under Rule 23(c)(4) without first undertaking an analysis of whether the class certification prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and 23(b) had also been satisfied.\u00a0 The case was remanded for further proceedings.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit\u2019s decision ought to be required reading for employers with large workforces and those dealing with wage & hour class actions.\u00a0 It bears watching whether the district court\u2019s analysis of the rigorous requirements of Rule 23(b) on remand also results in a pro-certification decision, given the instructions provided on remand.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/b><\/p>\n

In Harris<\/i>, the named plaintiffs were non-emergency medical drivers for the defendant, a company that provides transportation to individuals on public assistance who require transit getting to medical appointments. \u00a0They alleged that they and a class of other drivers who they seek to represent in a class action lawsuit were denied minimum and overtime pay in violation of District of Columbia and federal wage and hour laws.\u00a0 Slip op. at 5-6.<\/p>\n

Whether defendant MTM could as a matter of law be held liable as the drivers\u2019 employer is a threshold question in the litigation.\u00a0\u00a0 Id.<\/i> at 6.\u00a0 The district court certified issues classes as to (i) whether MTM is the drivers\u2019 joint employer (along with its sub-contractors); and (ii) whether MTM is a general contractor under D.C. law and thus strictly liable.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 8.\u00a0 The district court did so despite finding previously that the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) was not met under the facts of the case specifically as they relate to the payment system for the drivers. \u00a0Id<\/em>. at 7-8.<\/p>\n

MTM appealed the issue certification ruling.<\/p>\n

The D.C. Circuit\u2019s Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

In a straightforward ruling, but one that delves into the complexities of Rule 23 with law-professor like precision, the D.C. Circuit panel consisting of Judges Millett, Childs and Rogers determined that the district court could not certify the issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4) without deciding whether those classes also meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) \u2013 commonality and typicality \u2013 and 23(b) \u2013 predominance and superiority.\u00a0 In essence, the D.C. Circuit read the plain language of Rule 23 and observed that sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) all bear on the certification inquiry conducted by the district court and therefore must be considered on an equal basis.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 14-15.<\/p>\n

In the penultimate statement of the holding, Judge Childs opined that \u201cRule 23\u2019s text and structure offer no quarter to the view that Rule 23(c)(4) creates an independent type of class action that is freed from all of Rule 23\u2019s other class action prerequisites.\u00a0 So the district court should have ensured that the issue class that it certified met all, and not just some, of Rule 23(a) and (b)\u2019s preconditions to class status.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/i> at 15-16.<\/p>\n

The D.C. Circuit instructed the district court that it must analyze on remand each of the potential class actions available under Rule 23(b)(3)\u2019s predominance analysis.\u00a0 Id.<\/i> at 19-20.\u00a0 It discussed various ways in which Rule 23(c)(4) can be applied in the context of the joint employer analysis that is at issue in Harris<\/i>, such as bifurcating the liability issue from remedial claims, or where affirmative defenses may muddy the waters of class-wide evidence in a certified issues class.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 21-22.<\/p>\n

In a similar vein, Judge Childs instructed that summary judgment motions on discrete issues represent another way in which district courts could management issue certified class actions where the predominance of individualized issues threaten to overrun the common proof.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 24-25.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/b><\/p>\n

The D.C. Circuit opinion in Harris v. MTM <\/i>provides corporate counsel and executives a clear and easily understandable explanation of how Rule 23(b) and (c) intersect with one another when an issue class or classes are certified in class action litigation.\u00a0 District courts cannot certify issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4) without undertaking the rigorous analysis required to conclude that a class action is superior and manageable, that common issues will predominate over individualized issues, and that there are common and typical issues to be resolved in the first place.\u00a0 And by suggesting specific mechanisms that a district court has at its disposal for case management purposes such as targeted summary judgment motions, the decision provides reasonable strategies to consider when facing class action litigation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Rebecca S. Bjork Duane Morris Takeaways: On July 18, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that district courts must analyze the predominance and superiority requirements for certification of a class action when considering an \u201cissue class\u201d under Rule 23(c).\u00a0 In Harris v. … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “D.C. Circuit Issues A \u00a0\u201cHow-To\u201d Ruling Regarding Issue Certification For Rule 23 Class Actions”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,11],"class_list":["post-673","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":11,"user_id":579,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rsbjork","display_name":"Rebecca S. Bjork","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/bjorkrebecca-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Bjork","first_name":"Rebecca S.","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":"Read Rebecca's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/673","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=673"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/673\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=673"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}