Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02778/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02778-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Puente, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

City of Phoenix, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-02778-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

At issue is the Joint Motion to Resolve Dispute on Class Notice and to Approve 

Method and Content of Class Notice (Doc. 223, Mot.). The Court will resolve this matter 

without oral argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f).

In the Joint Motion, the parties inform the Court that they interpret the Court’s Order 

(Doc. 191, Order) resolving Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 101) 

differently, which affects the language of the Class Notice Plaintiffs plan to send to 

potential class members. The parties agree that the Court certified the injunctive relief 

class. But Plaintiffs believe the Court certified an overall damages class based on the 

Phoenix Police Department’s “dispersal by use of force, or other unlawful police activity 

arising from the police response to anti-Trump protestors,” whatever that activity may have 

been, as well as a damages subclass based on the use of gas or other chemical agents. By 

contrast, with regard to a damages class, Defendants believe the Court certified only the 

damages subclass based on the Phoenix Police Department’s use of gas or other chemical 

agents.

Case 2:18-cv-02778-JJT Document 225 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants’ interpretation of the Court’s Order is correct. In resolving Plaintiffs’ 

Amended Motion for Class Certification, the Court understood the two damages subclasses 

to be the only two classes of specific conduct for which Plaintiffs sought damages. Indeed, 

the Court understood the parties’ briefs on Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Class 

Certification to only specifically identify and analyze damages arising from the conduct 

described in the two damages subclasses. The Court laid out this understanding throughout 

its Order, including on pages 5 and 6, by identifying Plaintiffs’ proposed damages class 

and then identifying the only two damages subclasses, and on page 9, by outlining the 

analysis for each proposed damages subclass only. A principled approach to resolving 

whether Plaintiffs met the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and predominance 

requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) was to do so by 

damages subclass, and it so happens that Plaintiffs succeeded in meeting the requirements 

in one subclass but not the other. Plaintiffs are correct that the Court did not go back and 

combine Plaintiffs’ damages class definition with the surviving damages subclass 

definition, but the unusual structure of the surviving damages class definition was entirely 

a function of how Plaintiffs structured the proposed damages class to begin with. 

Importantly, the Court never analyzed numerosity, commonality, typicality, and 

predominance for an “overall damages class”—that is, for class claims based on conduct 

not identified in the two damages subclasses—let alone did the Court certify such an 

overall damages class. To the extent Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s analysis for the 

injunctive relief class supports their interpretation, the Court disagrees. That analysis 

referred to the Court’s prior analysis of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and 

predominance for the surviving damages subclass. (Order at 15–16.)

The parties do not disagree as to the method of Class Notice, and the Court will 

approve the parties’ proposed method. (Doc. 223-1, Mot. Ex. A.) Under Rule 23(c)(2)(b), 

the Court will also approve the content of the parties’ proposed Class Notice with the 

Redlines proposed by Defendants incorporated. (Doc. 223-1, Mot. Exs. B, C.)

Case 2:18-cv-02778-JJT Document 225 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting the Joint Motion to Resolve Dispute on 

Class Notice and to Approve Method and Content of Class Notice (Doc. 223).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED approving the method of Class Notice set out in 

Exhibit A to the Joint Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED approving the content of the Class Notice set out in 

Exhibits B and C of the Joint Motion with the Redlines proposed by Defendants 

incorporated.

Dated this 23rd day of March, 2020.

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cv-02778-JJT Document 225 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 3