Opinion ID: 469369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: DENIAL OF 23(b)(2) CERTIFICATION

Text: 76 A class may be certified under 23(b)(2) when the party opposing the class 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. Plaintiffs here seek mandatory injunctive relief in the form of certain remedial action and restitution for expenditures already incurred to ameliorate asbestos hazards. 77 The district court concluded that despite the plaintiffs' ingenuity the claims in this suit were essentially for damages. The judge pointed to the advisory committee notes accompanying Rule 23(b)(2), which state that it does not extend to cases in which the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly to money damages. The district court did not rule out the possible application of equitable remedies at some stage of the proceeding but concluded that a (b)(2) certification was not appropriate at this time. 78 Precedent supports the district court's view that an action for money damages may not be maintained as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action. See, e.g., Lukenas v. Bryce's Mountain Resort, Inc., 538 F.2d 594 (4th Cir.1976); In re Arthur Treacher's Franchise Litigation, 93 F.R.D. 590, 594 (E.D.Pa.1982). We see no justification for overturning the district judge's evaluation of the realities of the litigation before him. Counsel's desire to have a mandatory class is understandable, but the case for such a certification has not been established. 79 We find neither error of law nor abuse of discretion in the judge's ruling, and consequently will affirm the denial of a (b)(2) class.