## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
CA RL OS T RE VI Z O,

Pl ai nt i ff, CA RLO S P EREZ, M AR I A D EL CA RM EN C RU Z, CA RM ELO C RU Z, LAU REN TI NO RO DR I GU EZ, A S H L E Y R O D R IG U E Z , S Y L V IA RO DR I GU EZ, GLO RI A E. V I LLA LO BO S, PED RO CA M PO S, JIV E R T O B A P T IS T A , an d R O G E L IO G O M E Z , fo r th e m se lv e s a n d o n b e h a lf of al l ot her s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed,

P lain tiffs-A p p e llan ts/ C ross -A pp el l ees, v. R O B E A D A M S , p e rso n a llya n d in h is capa ci t yas a Sal tL ake Ci t yPol i ce O fficer, D e fe n d a n t, S A L T L A K E C IT Y C O R P O R A T IO N , D E E D E E C O R R A D IN I, p e rso n a lly a n d in h e r c a p a c itya s M a y o r o f S a lt L a k e Ci t y , RU BE N OR T E GA, per s onal l yand i n hi s capa ci t yas P o l i c e C h i e f

o f S a l tL a k e C i t y, M E L O D Y G R A Y , p e rso n a llya n d in hercapa ci t yas a B ount i ful C i t yPol i ce Off i c e r , RU SS ELL AM OTT, J AM ES B L O O M E R , A M Y D E S P A IN , T IM N os . 05- 4098 and 05- 4110Honorable Claire V. E ag an, Chief District Court Judge, N orthern D istrict of * Oklahoma. -2- D O U BT , W A N D A G A BB ETA S, CRA I G G LEASON , GR EG HAGE L BE RG , M AR T Y KAUF M AN, PHI L KI RK , J OH N R I TCH I E, M I CH A EL R O SS, M O RG A N SA Y ES, T R O Y SI E B E R T , C H A D ST E E D , and M A R T Y V U Y K , p e rso n a llya n d in th e ir c a p a c iti e s a s S a lt L a k e C ity P oli ce O ffi cers ,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees/ C ross -A pp el l ants .

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D. C. NO. 9 9 - CV- 1 4 7 - P GC) D al e F . G ardi ner, P arryA nd ers on & G ardi ner, S al tL ake C i ty , U t ah fo r Pl ai nti ffsA pp el l ants / C ross -A pp el l ees. M o rris O H a g g e rty , S e n io r C ityA tto rn e y , S a lt L a k e C ityA tto rn e y ’s O ffice , S a lt L ake C i t y , U t ah fo r D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees/ C ross -A pp el l ants . B efo re KELLY , TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udges and EA GAN , D i s tr i ctJ udge. *
TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s appea l ar i s es outof a § 1983 a ct i on fi l ed aga i ns tSal tL ake Ci tyand vari ou s i nd i vidual l aw enfo rcem ent offi cers . T he p l ai nti ffs w ere ow ners,- 3 - empl oy ees , and cus t om er s of Panade r i a La D i ana, a Lat i no- ow ned bus i nes s that s e rv e d a s a c o m b in a tio n re s ta u ra n t, to rt illa fa c to ry, a n d b a k e ry in S a lt L a k e C ity. T he ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m s ar i s e fr om the manneri n w hi ch pol i ce e xecut ed a s ear ch
w arr antof Panade r i a La D i ana i n 1997. T hi r ty - thr ee i ndi vi dual s i ni t i al l yfi l ed sui tal l eging gross i m propri et i es fr om the S W A T -s ty l e po l i ce rai d. T heyal so so u g h t cl ass a cti o n ce rt ifi ca ti o n o n b eh alf o f th e re m ainin g ind ividu als w h o w ere s u bje c te d to th e ra id b u t fa ile d to file s u it. A fter n u m ero u s p retri al de lay s, the d istri ct co u rtissue d a len g thysu m m ary j udgm entor deri n 2004, w hi ch compl et el ydi s pos ed of the ca s e as t o t en of the p lain tiffs a n d p a rtiallyd isp o se d o f th e c a se a s to th e re m a in in g p lain tiffs. T h is appea l i nvol ves t he t en pl ai nt i ffs agai ns tw hom compl et e s um m aryj udgm entw as i ssued. T heycon t estt he d i stri ctcou rt ’s decis i on t o d i sm i ss theircl ai m s and als o c h a lle n g e its p ri o r d e n ia l o f th e irm o tio n fo r c la s s c e rt ific a tio n . H avi ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e A FFIRM the d e c is io n s b e lo w . I . Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound Pr i ort o t he eve nt s t hatgave r i s e t o thi s cas e, Panader i a La D i ana ha d been pl ace d unders ur vei l l ance byl aw enfor cementdue t o num er ous r eport s of drug s al es on t he pr emi s es . A s partof thei ri nves t i gat i on, under coverpol i ce pur chas ed coca i ne and he r oi ne fr om ei ghtdi ffe r entper s ons i n the parki ng l otand pur chas edW e re fe r t o th e s e d e fe n d a n ts c o lle c tiv e ly as “ th e C ity.” 1

-4 - t he pr es cr i pt i on drug D arvon fr om an empl oy ee i ns i de the r es t aur ant . T he pol i ce a ls o o b ta in e d in fo rm a tio n a b o u t p o te n tia l fir e a rm s lo c a te d o n th e p re m is e s . A tm i d- aft ernoon on A pr i l 24, 1997, Sal tL ake Ci typol i ce, i n conj unct i on wi t h o ffi c e r s f

r o m oth e ra g e n c i e s , e x e c u t e d a s e a r c h warr a n ta tPa n a d e r i a La D ia n a , s e e k in g e v id e n c e o f th e p u rp o rt e d d ru g a c tiv ity o c c u rr in g o n th e p ro p e rt y . T he w arr antw as exec ut ed pur s uantt o hi gh r i s k pr ocedur e and, thr oughoutthe cour s e of the s ear ch, atl eas tfor t y - s even SW A T m ember s and otherl aw en fo rce m en t office rs de tai n ed ap p rox im atelyeigh typ eo p le. S ix p eo p le w ere i ni t i al l yarr es t ed, i ncl udi ng t he empl oy ee w ho had pr evi ous l ys ol d D arvon t o an under coveroffi cer . H ow ever , t he s ear ch pr oduced no ne w evi dence of i l l egal a c tiv ity, a n d th e c h a rg e s w e re la te r d ro p p e d . N ear l yt w o y ear s l at er , on M ar ch 8, 1999, thi r ty - thr ee of the per s ons detai ned byl aw enfo rcem ent j oined i n fil i ng sui tun der 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 ag ai nst Sal t L ake C i t y and i ndi vi dual pol i ce offi cer s i nvol ved i n the r ai d. T he pl ai nt i ffs 1 cl ai m ed theys uffe r ed mal t r eatm entatt he hands of l aw enfor cementoffi cer s and al l eged a l i t anyof horr i fi c fa ct s t o s uppor tt hei rcl ai m s . T he al l egat i ons , w hi ch
w e re s e t o u t a t le n g th in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s th o ro u g h o p in io n , s e e Pana de r i a La D i ana, Inc. v. Sal tLake C i t y C or p. , 342 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1016–29 ( D . U t ah 2004) , des cr i be a w i de r ange of phy s i cal and verbal abus e of pe r s ons att he s cene , i ncl udi ng pr egnantw om en and c hi l dr en.A s not ed above , t he courtal s o ent er ed s um m aryj udgm entagai ns tt he 2 r emai ni ng pl ai nt i ffs on cert ai n cl ai m s . T hes e pl ai nt i ffs di d notappea l t he d e c is io n a n d s e ttle d th e irre m a in in g c la im s . -5- O n J ul y22, 2004, overfi ve y ear s aft erthe pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed s ui t , the C i t ynot i ced de pos i t i ons fora numberof pl ai nt i ffs forJ ul y30, the l as tdayof the di s coveryper i od. O n t hatdat e, forr eas ons thatar e di s put ed bythe part i es , the fol l ow i ng t en not i ced pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o appea ratthe appoi nt ed pl ace : C ar l os Per ez, M ar i a D el C arm en C ruz, C arm el o C ruz, L aur ent i no R odr i guez, A s hl ey R o d rig u e z , S ilv ia R o d rig u e z , G lo ria E . V ill a lo b o s, P e d ro C a m p o s, Jiv e rto B apt i s t a, and R ogel i o G om ez. T hes e pl ai nt i ffs w er e ther efor e neve rdepos ed. A ft erdi s coveryw as cl os ed butbefor e the mot i ons deadl i ne had pa s s ed, t he pl ai nt i ffs m oved forcert i fi cat i on as a cl as s act i on pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 23. I n addi t i on, the C i tym oved fors um m aryj udgm entpur s uant t o R ul e 56. T he courtdeni ed the pl ai nt i ffs ’ r eques tforcl as s cert i fi cat i on and g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t ag a in st th e ten p lain tiffs w h o fa iled to a p p e a r a t th e ir ow n d epo si t i on s. 2 T hes e t en pl ai nt i ffs appea l t he j udgm entent er ed aga i ns tt hem as w el l as t he deni al of cl as s cert i fi cat i on. T he C i tycr os s - appea l s t he ce r t i fi cat i on i s s ue. I I . D i s cus s i on A . S u m m a ry J u d g m en t A g a inst P laintiffs W hen a pa r t ym oves fors um m aryj udgm ent , i tw i l l be gr ant ed i f “the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e,-6-

t ogetherw i t h t he affi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). P lai n ti ffs see k ing to o v erc o m e a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entm aynot“r es ton m er e al l egat i ons ” i n thei rcompl ai ntbutm us t“s et for t h sp e c ifi c fa c t s s ho w i ng t ha tthe r e i s a ge nu i ne i s s ue fo rt r i a l . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (e ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee Luj an v. Nat ’ lWi ldl i f e Fed’ n. , 497 U . S. 871, 902 ( 1990) ( “[C]onc l us or yal l egat i ons uns uppor t ed bys peci fi c evi dence w i l l be in s u ffic ie n t to e s ta b lis h a g e n u in e is s u e o f fa c t.” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). T h is d o e s n o t m e a n th a t ev id e n c e m u st b e su b m itt e d “ in a fo rm th a t w o u ld be admi s s i bl e att r i al . ” C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 4 7 7 U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 4 (1 9 8 6 ). I ndeed, part i es m ays ubm i taff i davi t s even though aff i davi t s ar e oft en i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ayatt r i al on the theoryt hatt he s ame fact s m ayul t i m at el ybe p re s e n te d a t tr ia l in a n a d m is s ib le fo rm . B r yantv. Far m ers Ins . Exch. , 432 F. 3d 1114, 1122 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , “[t ] o det erm i ne w hethergenui ne i s s ues of
m a ter ial fa c t m a k e a ju rytrial n e c e ss a ry , a c o u rt n e c e ss a rilym a yc o n sid e r o n ly th e e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld b e a v a ila b le to th e ju ry” in s o m e fo rm . A rgo v. B l ue C r os s and B l ue Shi eld of Kans as , Inc. , N o. 05- 3114, 2006 W L 1806605, at* 5 ( 10t h C i r . J ul y3, 2006) ( ci t i ng Truc k Ins . Exch. v. MagneTek, Inc. , 360 F. 3d 1206, 1216 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( aff i r m i ng s um m aryj udgm ent , i n l i ghtof the avai l abl e evi dence , beca us e “[j ] uryver di ct s m aynotbe bas ed on s pecul at i on or inad m issi b le ev iden ce o r be co n tr aryto u n co n test ed ad m issi b le ev iden ce ”)).-7-

H avi ng r evi ew ed thi s i s s ue de novo a nd appl i ed the s ame st andar d as the d is tr ic t c o u rt , B ur nham v. Humphr ey Hos pi tal i t y Rei tTrus t, Inc. , 403 F. 3d 709, 714 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) , w e come t o the s ame concl us i on— thatthes e pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed to “ p u t fo rw a rd a n ye v id e n c e in th e irfa v o r” th a t s a tis fie s th e s e s ta n d a rd s , P a n a d e ria , 342 F. Supp. 2d at1030. A bs entdepos i t i on t es t i m onyorother c o m p e ten t ev id e n c e o f w h a t o c c u rre d , itw a s in c u m b e n t u p o n th e se p lain tiffs to pr ovi de— att he veryl eas t

— aff i davi t s det ai l i ng w hathappene d t o them. N one of th e se ten p lain tiffs d id so . N o r, af ter th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n a ler ted th e m to t hei rdefi ci enci es , di d t heyas k t he courtt o r econs i deri t s rul i ng and, atthatt i m e, s e e k to s u p p le m e n t th e re c o rd . A s i ti s , t he pl ai nt i ffs can onl yar gue on appe al that( 1) the C i tynever co n test ed their pr es ence atPanader i a La D i ana, and ( 2) otherpr evi ous l yj oi ned plai nti ffs (w ho had provided d epo si t i on t est i m on yt o sup po rttheirow n clai m s)
m ade s w eepi ng s t at ement s aboutthe gr oup as a w hol e. H ow ever , nei therphy s i cal p rese n ce o n the p rem ises, n o r va g u e, ge n era li ze d stat em en ts from o thers s ugges t i ng t hat“pr ett ym uch eve ry one w as tr eat ed the s ame w ay , ” A ppl t . A ppx. at360, i s s uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e “s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng t her e i s a genui ne i s s ue fo r t ri a l a s to th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts ” o f th e s e p la in tiffs ’ c la im s . See Fl ight C oncepts Ltd. P ’s hi

p v. B oei ng C o. , 38 F. 3d 1152, 1156 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . T he re c o rd is p a rticu lar lyd e ficie n t co n sid e rin g th e p lain tiffs h a d o v e r fiv e y e a rs toB ec au se w e a ffirm o n this gro u n d , w e n ee d n o t r ea ch the d istri ct co u rt ’s 3 al t ernat i ve r eas on fordi s m i s s i ng thes e pl ai nt i ffs ’ cas e— thatdefa ul tj udgm entw as w arr ant ed as a R ul e 37 s anct i on forfai l ur e t o appea ratt hei rs chedul ed dep osi t i on s. -8- pr epar e thei rcas e, and s um m aryj udgm entw as gr ant ed onl yone mont h befor e the sch ed u led tri al i n the m att er. B eca us e thes e pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o m eetthe r equi r ement s of R ul e 56, su m m aryjud g m en t i s ap p rop ri ate. W e the refo re u p h o ld the d istri ct co u rt ’s deci s i on. 3 B . D eni al of

P l ai nt i ffs ’ M ot i on for C l as s C ert i fi cat i on Pl ai nt i ffs al s o appea l on behal f of otherpot ent i al cl ai m ant s w ho w er e att he restau ran t du ri n g the ra id b u t did n o t j o in the law su it , arg u ing the d istri ct co u rt sh o u ld h a v e c e rtifie d th e ir c a se a s a c las s a c tio n . T h e d istric t co u rt in iti a lly deni ed ce r t i fi cat i on on t he gr ound of unt i m el i nes s . Subse quent l y , how ever , t he cou rtam end ed it s pri or order and de nied cert i fi cat i on based o n the pl ai nti ffs’ fa i l u r e t o m e e tt w o e l e m e n t s s e tfo r th i n R u l e 2 3

— n u m e r o s i ty a n d c o m m o n a l i t y. “W hethert he di s t r i ctcour tappl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d i n i t s deci s i on t o gr antordenycl as s cert i fi cat i on i s r evi ew ed de novo. ” Sh oo k v. E lP aso C o u n ty , 3 8 6 F . 3 d 9 6 3 , 9 6 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). H o w ev er, “[w ]he n the d istri ct co u rt has appl i ed the pr opers t andar d i n deci di ng w hethert o cert i fya cl as s , w e may r ever s e thatdeci s i on onl yforan abus e of di s cr et i on. ” Id .-9-

1. T i m el i n ess T hi s l aw s ui thad bee n pendi ng forfi ve y ear s befor e the pl ai nt i ffs m oved for cl as s cert i fi cat i on. T heyfi l ed att he l at es tpos s i bl e opportuni ty— the fi nal dayof t he mot i ons per i od. A tt hatpoi nt , di s coveryhad al r eadycl os ed and a t w o- w eek j ur yt r i al w as j us tovert w o m onths aw ay . B eca us e gr ant i ng cert i fi cat i on att hat p o i n tw o u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n e x t e n d i n g t h e m o t i o n s p e r i o d , r e o p e n i n g d i s c o v e r y, and res ched uli ng t ri al , t he d i stri ctcou rtrej ect ed the m oti on for un t i m el i ness, fin d ing itto b e u n fa irto the d efen se a n d im p rac ti ca b le fo r th e c o u rt . T h e c o u rt based it s deci si on on F ederal R ule of C i vil P rocedu re 23(c) (1) , w hich st at es,

“ W h e n a p e rso n su e s o r is s u e d a s a re p re se n tativ e o f a c las s, th e c o u rt m us t

— at a n e a r l y p r a c t i c a b l e t i me — determ i ne b yorder w hethert o cert i fyt he acti on as a class a cti o n . ” (e m p h asis ad d ed ). S u b se q u e n tly , h o w e v e r, re a lizin g th a t th is c irc u it i n terp re ts R u le 2 3 (c )(1 ) to req u ir e the tr ial co u rtto “tak e u p class a cti o n statu s” in a ti m elym an n er “w hether
r eques t ed t o do s o ornotby a par t y orpar t i es , w her e i ti s an el ementof the cas e. ” Hor n v. A s s oc. Whol es al e G r ocers , Inc. , 5 5 5 F . 2 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 4 (10 th C ir . 1977) ( emphasi s added) , t he di s tr i ctcourtamended i t s or derand pr ovi ded addi t i onal r eas oni ng on t he mer i t s of the ce r t i fi cat i on r eques t . I n i t s r evi s ed o rd e r, th e d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d R u le 2 3 (c )(1 ) w a s n o t in ten d e d to c re a te a b a sis fo r a u to m a tic d e n ia l o f a p a rt y ’s re q u e s t fo r c la s s c e rt ific a tio n .T he C i t yal s o ar gues t hat , even i f R ul e 23( c) ( 1) does notcr eat e an 4 i ndepende ntbas i s fordeny i ng a party ’ s m ot i on, t i m el i nes s nonethel es s r emai ns re lev a n t u n d e r th e c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o f w h e th e r th e re p re se n tativ e p a rties w ill adequa t el yr epr es entt he i nt er es t s of the cl as s pur s uantt o R ul e 23( a) ( 4) . T he S up rem e C ou rthas recogn i zed thatplai nti ffs’ fai l ure t o m ov e for cl ass cert i fi cat i on p rio r to tria l i s a s t r ong i ndi cat i on theyw oul d not“fa i r l yand adequa t el ypr ot ectthe i nt er es t s of the cl as s . ” E
. Tex. Mot orFr eightSys
. , Inc. v. R odr i quez , 431 U . S. 395, 404–05 ( 1977) . B eca us e w e do notr eac h the i s s ue of R ul e 23( a) ( 4) ’ s appl i cat i on ( s ee be l ow ) , w e nee d notcons i derw hethert o ext end t he R odr iguezl ogi c t o t he fa ct s of thi s cas e. -10- W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour ton thi s poi nt . A s w e expl ai ned i n Horn , R ul e 23( c) ( 1) pl ace s t he onus on the courtt o m ake a det erm i nat i on i rr es pect i ve of
w hethert he part i es have r eques t ed cl as s act i on s t atus . T her efor e, i tdoes not cr eat e an i ndepende ntbas i s fordeny i ng a party ’ s m ot i on. N ordo the 2003 amendm ent s t o t hi s R ul e al t erouranal y s i s . N ei therthe l anguage i t s el f, w hi ch
w as change d fr om “as s oon as pr act i cabl e” t o “atan ea r l ypr act i cal t i m e, ” nort he acc om pany i ng A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee N ot es pr ovi de a r eas on t o di s turb our pr ece dent on t hi s i s s ue. A ccor di ngl y , w e tur n t o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ubs equent 4 eval uat i on of the pl ai nt i ffs ’ r eques tbas ed on the r equi r ement s s peci fi cal l ys et fo rt h in R u le 2 3 . 2. P rer equi s i t es t o C l as s C ert i fi cat i on A class m ayb e c erti fied o n lyif all fo u r of the fo ll o w ing p rereq u isi tes are m e t: (1) N u m ero sity : “the class i s so n u m ero u s that joind er o f a ll m em b ers is im p ra c tica b le” ;-11-

( 2) C om m on al i ty : “ther e ar e ques t i ons of l aw orfac tt hatar e comm on t o t he cl as s ”; (3) T yp icali ty : “th e c lai m s o r de fe n ses o f th e re p rese n tat ive p arti es are t ypi cal of the cl ai m s ordefe ns es of the cl as s ”; and (4 ) A d e q u a c yo f

re p re se n tatio n : “th e re p re se n tativ e p a rties w ill fa irly and ade quat el yr epr es entt he i nt er es t s of the cl as s . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 23( a) . A par t ys eeki ng cl as s cert i fi cat i on m us tsh ow “under a s tr ic t b u rd e n o f

p ro o f” th a t a ll fo u r r e q u ir e m e n ts a re c le a rl ym e t. R eed v
. B ow en , 8 4 9 F . 2 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 0 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). In i t s am end ed o rder , t he d i stri ctcou rtden i ed the m oti on based o n the fi rs t and s econd e l ement s — num er os i tyand comm onal i ty . T he pl ai nt i ffs chal l enge the cou rt ’s determ i nati on on each o f t hese el em ents . Nu m e ro sity . I n or dert o m eett hi s el ement , “[t ] he bur den i s upon pl ai nt i ffs s eeki ng t o r epr es enta cl as s t o es t abl i s h thatt he cl as s i s s o num er ous as t o m ake j oi nderi m pr act i cabl e. ” P et ers on v. O kla. C i t y Hous i ng A uth. , 545 F. 2d 1270, 1273 ( 10t h C i r . 1976) . H er e, t he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded that , al though the num berof put at i ve cl as s m ember s — ei ghty - four

— w as noti ns i gni fi cant , i tw as not s uch an ove r w hel m i ngl yl ar ge numberas t o be pr ohi bi t i ve of j oi nder . N orw as t her e anypr obl em l ocat i ng t he r emai ni ng i ndi vi dual s forj oi nders i nce a l l t he
n a m e s a n d a d d re s s e s o f p o te n tia l p la in tiffs h a d b e e n p ro v id e d d u ri n g d is c o v e ry. T he pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatt he di s tr i ctcourts houl d have fol l ow ed ca s es fr om o th e r j u ri s d ic tio n s w h ic h h o ld n u m e ro s ity m a yb e p re s u m e d a t a c e rt a in n u m b e r.-12-

See C on sol
. R ailC orp. v. H yde P ark , 47 F. 3d 473, 483 ( 2d C i r . 1995) ( pr es um i ng n u m e ro sitya t fo rtym e m b e rs) ; s ee als o P ol i ch v. B ur l i ngt on Nor ther n, Inc. , 116 F .R .D . 2 5 8 , 2 6 1 (D . M o n t. 19 8 7 ) (fin d in g six typ o ten tial m e m b e rs s u fficie n t to s uppor ta pr es um pt i on t hatj oi nderw as notpr act i cabl e) . O urci r cui thas never a d o p ted su c h a p re su m p tio n . T o th e c o n tra ry , w e h a v e sp e c ifica llysta ted th e re is “no setform ula t o d et erm i ne if the clas s i s so num erous that i tshou l d b e so cert i fi ed. ” R ex v . O w ens ex r el
. Stat e of O kla. , 5 8 5 F . 2 d 4 3 2 , 4 3 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). In d e e d , b e c a u se it i s s u c h a fa c t-sp e c ific in q u iry , w e g ra n t w id e latitu d e to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt in m a k in g th is d e te rm in a tio n . Johns on by Johns on v. Thomps on , 971 F. 2d 1487, 1498 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) . H er e, the di s tr i ctcour tcar eful l yr evi ew ed t he r ecor d and made an appr opr i at e j udgm entcal l . W e ther efor e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on. P lain tiffs a rg u e in th e a ltern a tiv e th a t jo in d e r w o u ld b e im p ra c tica b le in th e ir c a se b a se d o n th e u n iq u e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e p u tativ e c las s. A c c o rd in g to t he curr entpl ai nt i ffs , t he r emai ni ng pot ent i al cl as s m ember s m aybe det err ed fr om j oi ni ng t he l i t i gat i on as named pl ai nt i ffs beca us e ( 1) thei rE ngl i s h w as l i m i t ed, a n d (2 ) th e yw e re fe a rf u l o f th e leg a l sy ste m . T h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th is a rg u m e n t u n p e rsu a siv e , n o tin g th a t m a n yo f th e n a m e d p lain tiffs a lso sp o k e little orno E ngl i s h, y ett heyhad managed t o fi l e cl ai m s . Fur ther , the courtfound the pl ai nt i ffs had fa i l ed t o demonstr at e anyfac tual bas i s forconcl udi ng t he r emai ni ng i ndi vi dual s w er e det err ed fr om fi l i ng cl ai m s bas ed on s om e uni que fe arof the-13-

leg a l sy ste m . T h e o n lyin d ica tio n su b m itt e d w a s a v a g u e a n d c o n c lu so rya ffid a v it byone pl ai nt i ff thatpurpor t ed t o des cr i be the mot i ves of other s . T he di s tr i ct cour tfound the s ol i t aryaff i davi ti nadequa t e t o s uppor tthe s er i ous al l egat i ons under l y i ng t he ar gum ent , es peci al l ys i nce the pl ai nt i ffs had ac ces s t o the other i ndi vi dual s y ett ook no s t eps t o obt ai n s peci fi c fa ct s r el evantt o thei rr eas ons for nots ui ng t he C i t y . I n anyevent , even i f the cl as s w er e ce r t i fi ed, the r emai ni ng i nd i vidual s w ou l d ev entual l yhav e had t o co m e forw ard t o joi n the cl ass ir re s p e c tiv e o f

th e irv ie w s a b o u t th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s . In su m , w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in fi ndi ng t hatj oi nderw as pr act i cal and thatthe pot ent i al cl as s m ember s coul d have fi l e d i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m s a g a i n s tt h e C i ty. Co m m o n a lit

y . In th e p ri n c ip a l c a s e o n R u le 2 3 (a ) c o m m o n a lity, G ener al Tel ephone Company of Southw es tv. Fal con , 457 U . S. 147, 156 ( 1982) , t he S up rem e C ou rtheld m em bers of a pu t at i ve clas s m ust“po sses s the sam e i nter est and suffer the sam e i njury . ” In that cas e, t he S up rem e C ou rtden i ed clas s c e r t i fi c a t i o n t o a g r o u p o f M e x i c a n - Ame r i c a n s p u r s u i n g s i mi l a rTi t l e VI I c l a i ms on t he bas i s t hatt heyhad fa i l ed t o pr ovi de a “ s peci fi c pr es ent at i on i dent i fy i ng t he ques t i ons of l aw orfac tt hatw er e comm on. ” Id. at158. T he C our temphasi zed t he n ecessi t yof ri go rous analy si s byt he d i stri ctcou rtbefo re gr anti ng cl ass cert i fi cat i on beca us e of the “pot ent i al unfai rnes s t o the cl as s m ember s bound by t he j udgm enti f the fr ami ng of the cl as s i s overbr oad. ” Id. at161.-14-

“ T h e d istric t co u rt re tain s d isc re tio n to d e ter m in e c o m m o n a lityb e c a u se it i s

‘ i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne the fa ct s of the ca s e, t o appr eci at e the c o n se q u e n c e s o f

a ltern a tiv e m e th o d s o f re so lv in g th e iss u e s o f th e c a se a n d . . . to s el ectt he mosteff

i ci entm ethod forthei rr es ol ut i on. ’ ” J. B
. ex r el
. Har tv. Valdez , 186 F. 3d 1280, 1289 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng B ought on v. C ot t erC or p. , 65 F. 3d 82 3, 82 5 (10th C i r. 19 95 ). “W hethera case shou l d b e al l ow ed to proceed a s a c las s a c tio n in v o lv e s in ten se lyp ra c tica l co n sid e ra tio n s, m o st o f w h ich a re p u re ly fa c tu a l o r fa c t-in ten siv e . E a c h c a se m u st b e d e c id e d o n its o w n fa c ts, o n th e b a sis of ‘ pr act i cal i t i es and prudent i al cons i der at i ons . ’ ” Monr ealv. P ot t er , 367 F. 3d 1224, 1238 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng R eed , 849 F. 2d at1309 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es P a ro le C o m m 'n v . G e ra g h ty , 4 4 5 U .S . 3 8 8 , 4 0 2

– 0 3 , 4 0 6 n .1 1 (1 9 8 0 )) ). H er e, i n exami ni ng t he fa ct s of the ca s e, the di s tr i ctcour tdet erm i ned the p lain tiffs p re se n ted “ d iv e rg e n t fa c t p a ttern s w h ich m a [ d ]e th is c a se in a p p ro p ria te forcl as s act i on s t atus . ” D i s t . C t . O r der , N ov. 2, 2004, at5. Speci fi cal l y , the c o u rt o b s e rv e d , T h e ju ry ’s determ i nati on of reasonab l eness [w hich i s cent ral t o these pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s ] w i l l r el yon num er ous fac t or s w hi ch di ffe r s i gni fi cant l yas t o m anypl ai nt i ffs s uch as ( 1) h o w lon g the pl ai nt i ffs w er e det ai ned; ( 2) w her e the pl ai nt i ffs w ere d et ai ned; ( 3) w hethert he pl ai nt i ff i s an ow ner , empl oy er , cus t om er , orby s t ander , an d ( 4) the d e g r e e o f fo r c e u s e d wi t h e a c h p l a i n t i ff, a mo n g ma n yo th e r s . I ts e e ms cl eart o t he courtt hatt he j urym ayaw ard d am ag es t o s om e of the p la in tiffs b u t fin d th a t o th e rs a re n o t e n title d to d a m a g e s . Id .T he C i t yal s o ar gues t he di s tr i ctcourts houl d have de ni ed ce r t i fi cat i on on 5 t he fourt h el ement

— adequa cyof r epr es ent at i on. B eca us e w e hol d the di s tr i ct cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng cl as s cert i fi cat i on bas ed on n u m ero sityan d co m m o n ali ty , an d b ec au se e ith er o r bo th o f th o se e lem en ts are s uffi ci entt o s upporti t s deci s i on, w e nee d notexpl or e addi t i onal r eas ons not re lie d u p o n b e lo w . -15- In l i gh tof the dis t ri ctcou rt ’s tho rough exam i nati on of the rel evan tfact s, a n d a c k n o wl e d g i n g t h e c o u r t ’ s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n a s s e s s i n g c o mm o n a l i ty , we concl ude i tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng the es s ent i al el ementof c o m m o n a lityw a s n o t m e t. 5 I I I . C oncl usi on F o rt h e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we AF F I RM t h e d e c i s i o n s b e l o w.