Opinion ID: 1615159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acts or Refusals to Act on Grounds Generally Applicable to the Class

Text: Rule 23(b)(2) requires that the party opposing the class [i.e., Wayne's] has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. By its terms, . . . Rule 23(b)(2)[, Fed. R.Civ.P.,] imposes two independent but related requirements. In the first place, the defendants' actions or inactions must be . . . generally applicable to all class members. . . . The latter half of Rule 23(b)(2) requires that final injunctive relief be appropriate for the class as a whole.  Shook v. Board of County Comm'rs of County of El Paso, 543 F.3d 597, 604 (10th Cir.2008). Ryan notes that [s]ubsection (b)(2) was `intended primarily to facilitate civil rights class actions, where the class representatives typically sought broad injunctive relief against discriminatory practices.' Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1155 (11th Cir.1983) (quoting Penson v. Terminal Transport Co., 634 F.2d 989, 993 (5th Cir.1981)). While this is true, the Notes of Advisory Committee on 1966 Amendments following Federal Rule 23 explicitly state that [s]ubdivision (b)(2) is not limited to civil-rights cases. Thus an action looking to specific or declaratory relief could be brought by a numerous class of purchasers, say retailers of a given description, against a seller alleged to have undertaken to sell to that class at prices higher than those set for other purchasers, say retailers of another description, when the applicable law forbids such a pricing differential. Thus, the common characteristic among the class members need not be inherent, i.e., race, gender, disability, and may even be economic in nature. Nonetheless, Rule 23(b)(2) demands a certain cohesiveness among class members with respect to their injuries, the absence of which can preclude certification. Shook, 543 F.3d at 604. `Injuries remedied through (b)(2) actions are really group, as opposed to individual injuries. . . . Although the interests of the different members of a(b)(2) class are by no means identical[,] the substantial cohesion of those interests makes it likely that representative members can adequately represent the interests of absent members and that the need for and interest in individual representation will be minimal.' Holmes, 706 F.2d at 1155 n. 8 (quoting Note, Notice in Rule 23(b)(2) Class Actions for Monetary Relief: Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 128 U. Pa. L.Rev. 1236, 1252-53 (1980)). See also Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 412 (5th Cir.1998) (stating that [t]he (b)(2) class action . . . was intended to focus on cases where broad, class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief is necessary). Ryan points to pronounced differences among the class members in terms of the injuries they sustained. Some class members have repair contracts while others have only re-treatment contracts; some never received proper initial treatments while others did not receive proper re-treatments; and some received inadequate reinspections while other received no reinspections at all. Moreover, some class members sustained termite damage while others did not. Further, some class members continue to be customers of Wayne's while others are not. Under such circumstances, the interests of these class members likely would differ in terms of the remedies they desire. For example, some need repairs for termite damage while others simply need reimbursement for a contract that was not performed. In short, it is undeniable that the members of the Patterson class did not suffer identical injuries that can be remedied through classwide injunctive relief.