Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00389/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00389-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX LUKOVSKY, MUHAMMED KHAN,

LARRY MITCHELL, ANTONIO HUGGINS,

SAMSON ASRAT, ANATOLIY

ZOLOTAREV, YEVGENIY

SKURATOVSKY, and VLADIMIR

VASILEVSKI, individually and on behalf of

class members,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, JOHN

SADORRA, RENATO SOLOMON,

VERNON CRAWLEY, MICHAEL ELLIS,

PHILLIP GINSBURG, and DORIS LANIER,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-00389 WHA

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

CLASS CERTIFICATION

INTRODUCTION

In this employment-discrimination action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981 and

1983 and California Government Code Section 12940(k), plaintiffs move for class certification

under FRCP 23 with respect to the Section 1981 claim. Plaintiffs do not move to certify a class

for the alleged violation of Section 1983. At hearing on this motion, plaintiffs withdrew their

request for certification of a Section 12940(k) class. As to the request to certify a Section 1981

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 85 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

class, this order finds that plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of FRCP 23. Plaintiffs’

motion is therefore DENIED. Defendants, however, are required to turn over all relevant

applications dating back to 2000 so that plaintiffs’ counsel can contact potential plaintiffs.

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs claim a deprivation of their civil rights under Section 1981 by defendants, who

include the City and County of San Francisco and six city employees. Underlying this claim,

plaintiffs allege that defendants discriminated on the basis of race by giving preferential

treatment to Asian and Filipino applicants for the position of electrical-transit-system mechanic,

or so-called “7371" positions, with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

(“MUNI”). In 2001, defendants purportedly hired several Asian and Filipino applicants who

did not meet the minimum qualifications for the job. Plaintiffs also contend that defendants

failed to make information about 7371 openings available to potential candidates who were not

Asian or Filipino. According to plaintiffs, this failure included not only flawed information

about permanent openings in 2001, but also about provisional positions in 2000 that ultimately

could have led to permanent 7371 positions.

In this motion, plaintiffs seek certification of the following class, asserting claims

against all defendants, consisting of:

(1) All applicants and deterred applicants in 2001 for 7371 positions who are

not Asian or Filipino (pursuant to Section 1981).

Initially plaintiffs also sought certification for a class of all employees in MUNI’s

maintenance division subjected to MUNI’s failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to

prevent discrimination and harassment pursuant to Section12940(k). At hearing on this motion,

however, plaintiffs withdrew their request to certify this state-law class due to unfavorable case

law from our circuit. This order, therefore, only considers plaintiffs’ request to certify the

Section 1981 class.

ANALYSIS

1. LEGAL STANDARD.

As a threshold matter, a motion for class certification must satisfy the prerequisites of

FRCP 23(a). FRCP 23(a) provides:

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 85 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a

class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all

only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact in common

to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative

parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4)

the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class.

“The party seeking to maintain the action as a class suit must . . . establish a prima facie

showing of each of the four certification prerequisites.” Conant v. McCaffrey, 172 F.R.D. 681,

691 (N.D. Cal. 1997)(citation omitted). “The failure to carry this burden as to any one of the

requirements precludes the maintenance of the lawsuit as a class action.” Ibid. 

2. SECTION 1981 CLASS.

The Section 1981 class is not sufficiently ascertainable. “Although there is no explicit 

requirement concerning the class definition in FRCP 23, courts have held that the class must be

adequately defined and clearly ascertainable before a class action may proceed.” Schwartz v.

Upper Deck Co., 183 F.R.D. 672, 679–680 (S.D. Cal. 1999)(citation omitted). “A class

description is insufficient, however, if membership is contingent on the prospective member’s

state of mind.” Id. at 679 (citation omitted). 

As currently framed, plaintiff’s Section 1981 class would include “potential applicants

who are neither Asian nor Filipino, who would have applied had the vacancies been adequately

announced” (Br. 3). This is not ascertainable. It is contingent on a state of mind. Any

judgment would be meaningless. We would not know who was and was not bound by the

result. The only ascertainable class would be those individuals who actually applied for 7371

positions in 2001 or related provisional positions that could have led to permanent 7371

positions.

Even if ascertainable, however, this more limited class cannot meet the practicability of

joinder or numerosity requirement under FRCP 23. “The numerosity requirement requires

examination of the specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute limitations.” Gen. Tel.

Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, 446 U.S. 318, 330

(1980).

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 85 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

In their moving papers, plaintiffs stated that “the core group of class members—non

Asian and non Filipino applicants who were not hired for the 7371 position, is identifiable and

constitutes approximately 25 class members” (Br. 11; Benay Decl. Exhs. B, I). During oral

argument, plaintiff explained that this group is in fact 50. The higher total is reached by

including applicants for related provisional positions dating back to 2000 that could have led to

permanent 7371 positions. Defense counsel countered that such applicants from 2000 cannot be

included because of the four-year statute of limitations for Section 1981 claims. Regardless of

whether the number is 25 or 50, however, the proposed class does not satisfy the numerosity

requirement of FRCP 23.

Although no “absolute limitations” are imposed by FRCP 23, this relatively small class

size coupled with several other factors minimizes any problems with joinder. The identities and

contact information for the class members are readily available from defendants’ application

files. These individuals presumably have ties to this geographic region given that they applied

for work in San Francisco. Finally, the potential damages for the class members are significant. 

This alleviates any worry that, absent aggregation, a disincentive to expend resources to litigate

exists. This order thus finds that joinder of the core of the Section 1981 class is not

impracticable. Plaintiffs’ request to certify the Section 1981 class is denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class based on violation of

Section 1981 is DENIED. Defense counsel is ordered to turn over to plaintiffs’ counsel the

names and addresses of all applicants for 7371 positions and related provisional positions for

the time period between 2000–2001 no later than JANUARY 20, 2006 AT NOON. Plaintiffs’

counsel will submit a letter to these applicants alerting them to the existence of this litigation. 

In this letter, plaintiffs’ counsel may indicate that she is willing to represent the former

applicant, but must also indicate that the applicant may bring his or her own lawsuit with a

different attorney and that the applicant may elect not to participate in this litigation at all. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel must provide a draft of the notification letter for approval by the Court and

defense counsel no later than JANUARY 27, 2006 AT NOON. The statute of limitations as to any

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 85 Filed 01/17/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

claims not eventually deemed barred at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit will be tolled

for 60 DAYS from the date of the mailing of the notification letter. A further status conference is

set on MARCH 9, 2006 AT 11:00 A.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 85 Filed 01/17/06 Page 5 of 5