Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/273760444/Pldg-NorCal-8-3-15-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Class-Certification-redacted
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:08:35+00:00

Document:
Class Certification Motion in the leading Tea Party case versus the Internal Revenue Service.
Application for Recognition of Tax Exemption with the IRS under 26 U.S.C.
A statement in the case file criticizing how the country is being run.
request for exclusion from the Principal Class.
relationship between the applicant and such other entities.
execute and file a request for exclusion from the Unnecessary Questions Subclass.
order certifying the proposed classes as defined above.
This case satisfies the standards for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
and disparately scrutinize hundreds of "Tea Party" groups and "Tea Party-type"
groups that were applying for tax exemption under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) or (c)(4).
had their return information repeatedly inspected in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
situations" and "in an equitable manner."
have their information repeatedly inspected.
segregated and more scrutinized than other cases.
leadership now asserts that no wrong occurred.
and which groups received demands for unnecessary information.
Ebin v. Kangadis Food, Inc., 297 F.R.D. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
Walls v. Sagamore Ins. Co., 274 F.R.D. 243 (W.D. Ark. 2011).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c).
return information subject to "secondary screening."
Subclass because there are at least 37 members.
Mann v. Acclaim Fin. Servs., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 278 (S.D. Ohio 2003).
rendered those inspections unlawful under 6103.
information) and arise from the same legal theory (violation of 6103).
In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996).
part of the classes they seek to represent and have suffered the same injuries.
handling this litigation to conclusion.
each uniform inspection that occurred.
Amgen Inc. v. Conn Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013).
Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007).
and injuries that should be efficiently and effectively adjudicated.
was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive, and it was inappropriate.
campaign intervention. A once-benign process had turned discriminatory.
applicants in the ordinary course, some receiving recognition in as little as 30 days.
demands for information that were unnecessary for determining their tax-exempt status.
and parcel of the IRSs unconstitutional scheme of viewpoint discrimination and retaliation.
o A statement in the case file criticizing how the country is being run.
used to flag and segregate Tea Party and Tea Party-type cases until June 2013. (Ex.
Once segregated, the Targeted Groups had their return information repeatedly inspected.
unnecessary. (Id.) Many more unnecessary inspections occurred during the Class Period.
2012, after learning of TIGTAs audit and after investigations were opened by U.S.
Hundreds of the Targeted Groups were wrongfully scrutinized.
EO Determinations (EOD) to process applications, called the Determination Letter Program.
are treated or mistreated consistently.
Plaintiffs do not seek certification of a class under Count II for declaratory and injunctive relief.
53:8-17; 54:20-55:7.) EOD is not supposed to predict what an organization might do. (IRS Dep.
the Application do not qualify for tax-exemption, a denial letter is sent.
D.C. EOT is staffed with Tax Law Specialists that provide guidance to EOD on complex issues.
change. On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Citizens United v.
criticized it in his 2010 State of the Union Address just six days later.
Targeted Groups based on their viewpoint.
Tea Parties and would not accept any Progressive or Emerge cases. (Ex. W, at 2; Interrog.
follow-up email thanked him for his response, which indicated that they were on hold by EOD.
continued to be involved in the targeting throughout the Class Period.
501(c)(4) applications that had some level of political engagement?
hadnt interacted with EO technical in Washington on cases really before.
. . . not as a whole group of cases.
applicant is organized primarily for a private benefit, it provides an independent basis for denying an application.
encumbered by a full plate of auto-revocation cases.
.) The Targeted Groups continued to be held in EOD.
the Advocacy Team used to issue development letters to the Targeted Groups. (Interrog. 7; Ex.
between the applicant and such other entities.
The record reflects that, at some point prior to May 2012, six of the Targeted Groups were approved. (Ex.
not affect the propriety of class certification here.
are unfairly treating Tea Party organizations.
referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list.
the application had those names in the title.
norm. Indeed, the IRS and its leadership now assert that no wrong occurred.
Complaint on behalf of the Targeted Groups.
is designed to further procedural fairness and efficiency. Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v.
Newberg on Class Actions 1:9 (5th ed. 2011).
The Courts reasoning was recently affirmed by the D.C. Circuit in the Z Street case. See Z Street v.
(2011)). A district court has broad discretion to decide whether to certify a class. Id. at 850.
Amgen, 133 S. Ct. at 1194-95).
Rule 23(c)(1)(B) provides that an order certifying a class action must define the class.
for exclusion from the Principal Class.
and file a request for exclusion from the Unnecessary Questions Subclass.
why they were selected, and which groups received the unnecessary requests for information.
Principal Class and the Unnecessary Questions Subclass under the proposed definitions.
affected [members] are sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In re Whirlpool, 722 F.3d at 852.
that plaintiff will suffer a strong litigational hardship or inconvenience if joinder is required.
Mann v. Acclaim Fin. Servs., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 278, 283 (S.D. Ohio 2003).
needed. See Rubenstein, supra, 3:16.
members is necessary; the actual names and addresses of class members are not necessary at this time.).
(S.D. Ohio 2013) (the ability to submit common proof on the issues supports commonality).
inspections of their Applications unlawful under 6103.
related to a wrong to a class, and that wrong includes the wrong to the plaintiff.
or her claims are based on the same legal theory.
repeatedly inspected for improper purposes.
information demanded, and had those responses wrongfully inspected.
other members of the class they seek to represent. Id.
class representative for the Unnecessary Questions Subclass.
Plaintiffs counsel are similarly committed to the vigorous prosecution of this lawsuit.
vigorously prosecute this lawsuit, the Court should find that adequacy is satisfied.
both the predominance and superiority requirements are satisfied.
questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class. Amgen, at 133 S. Ct. at 1191.
not prove that each element of a claim can be established by classwide proof. Id. at 858.
common issues that predominate, including the irrelevance of the questions asked.
Whirlpool, 722 F.3d at 861, this case does not even require individualized proof of damages.
$1,000 for each act of unauthorized inspection or disclosure of a return or return information . .
common issue if susceptible of measurement across the entire class[.] (quotation omitted)).
who individually would be without effective strength to bring their opponents into court at all.
addressing the superiority requirement.8 These factors favor the class certification in this case.
method is the superior method for adjudicating the claims under Count III.
Langdon Law, LLC, and Bill & Bev Randles Law Group, LLP as Class Counsel.
particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A)-(D).
Federal Judge King rejects News Corp's attempt to settle Class Action Securities Fraud re: MySpace "not fair, adequate, and reasonable"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.