Plaintiffs were misdemeanor detainees subject to a blanket strip search policy. The detainees requested Rule 23(b) certification solely on the issue of liability. The district court would not certify as to liability in the absence of a showing of predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), and, the defendants having conceded liability, the district court determined that such concession removed common liability issues from the predominance analysis. The Second Circuit reversed. After noting that “variations in the sources and application of a defense will not automatically foreclose class certification,” the Court then concluded that a court may employ Rule 23(c)(4)(A) to certify a class on a particular issue even if the action as a whole does not satisfy the (b)(3) predominance requirement. The circuit court further concluded that defendant’s concession of liability did not eliminate common issues. Finally, the court determined that denial of certification was an abuse of discretion, as common issues of liability predominated under Rules 23(b)(3) and (c)(4)(A). See Augustin v. Jablonsky (In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases), 461 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006).
Leave a Reply