Opinion ID: 2994958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ill Sept. 25, 1997). He thus recommended

Text: the denial of the motion for certification of plaintiffs’ class without prejudice, with leave to reinstate the motion with respect to any claims that survived summary judgment. The district judge agreed and found that it would be wholly illogical to consider the motion, considering that the class certification claim appeared to be premised on an equal protection claim that was no longer viable. Judge Manning stated that [a] decision that the named plaintiffs’ claims lack merit may disqualify them as proper class representatives, thereby mooting the class certification question. Chavez, 27 F. Supp. 2d at 1084 (citing Cowen v. Bank United of Tx, 70 F.3d 937, 941 (7th Cir. 1995)). The court stated that plaintiffs would be allowed to renew their motion if they elected to pursue certification based on the claims that survived summary judgment. Thus, in early 1999, plaintiffs sought certification of a class consisting of all persons of Hispanic race or color who had been or would be stopped in violation of Title VI. Both the magistrate judge and the district court judge found that Chavez did not have standing to pursue prospective relief. The district court judge determined that Chavez could not, therefore, represent a class of Hispanic motorists seeking such relief and dismissed plaintiffs’ motion. While plaintiffs assert that this was error, the plaintiffs requested and were granted a voluntary dismissal of their Title VI claims. We will thus not review the district court’s refusal to certify a class with respect to those claims. Plaintiffs argued before the district court, and continue to assert on appeal, that they were entitled to a ruling on the motion for class certification before the district court considered the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ equal protection claims. The district court disagreed. The court noted that a ruling on summary judgment may properly precede a ruling on a motion for class certification. Id. at 1085. Though recognizing that an accelerated merits disposition may be preferable when the court considers the merits before ruling on a motion for class certification, the court stated that the delay was largely attributable to the plaintiffs. Id. We conduct a deferential review of the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court has broad discretion to determine whether certification of a class-action lawsuit is appropriate. Mira v. Nuclear Measurements Corp., 107 F.3d 466, 474 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Ret. Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of Chi., 7 F.3d 584, 596 (7th Cir. 1993)). In most circumstances, a judge should determine whether to grant or deny certification prior to ruling on the merits, as indicated by the text of Rule 23: As soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action, the court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c). This is the preferred policy as the propriety of class certification does not depend on the outcome of the suit. . . . It is therefore difficult to imagine cases in which it is appropriate to defer class certification until after decision on the merits. Bieneman v. City of Chi., 838 F.2d 962, 964 (7th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). We have since noted, however, that such situations do exist. If as soon as practicable occurs after a case is already ripe for summary judgment then it might be proper for a judge to consider a motion for summary judgment prior to considering a motion for class certification. Cowen, 70 F.3d at 941 (citations omitted). Where this situation occurs, if the court determines that the named plaintiffs’ claims lack merit, such a decision ordinarily, though not invariably, . . . disqualifies the named plaintiffs as proper class representatives, thus resolving the issue of class certification. Cowen, 70 F.3d at 941 (citations omitted). As noted by the district court, plaintiffs requested and were granted numerous stays with respect to the summary judgment motions before the court. In response to plaintiffs’ frustration with the delayed consideration of their class certification motion, the district court simply noted that the plaintiffs’ actions caused the delay. Yet this response obscures the fact that it was the district court’s decision to consider the summary judgment motions before the class certification motion that led to the delayed consideration of the latter. Indeed, this is why it is preferable to review a motion for class certification first; a quick disposition on the merits is often not possible. Nonetheless, [w]hile we agree that it is the better policy for the district court to dispose of a motion for class certification promptly and before ruling on the merits of the case, the failure to follow this preferred procedure does not necessarily amount to reversible error. Mira, 107 F.3d at 475. We must thus examine whether the delay in ruling was such that it rose to reversible error. The denial of class certification was premised on the district court’s finding that the named plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, a finding partially linked to the fact that Chavez had not returned to Illinois and had not been stopped since the original stop in 1993. Plaintiffs allege that, if the district court had ruled on class certification as soon as practicable, the mootness of Chavez’s claim would not have prevented the class members from proceed ing. Yet, even if this were true, the class would not have prevailed on the merits. The plaintiffs’ litigation strategy was to present statistics as the basis for their claims, and as we explain in Parts II.D.1.c and II.D.2 below, these statistics are not sufficient to prove a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This determination would have been made regardless of whether this lawsuit was certified as a class action or not. [A]lthough the procedural method chosen by the district judge is not the one favored under Rule 23, we refuse to disturb [her] denial of class certification because [ ] the plaintiffs’ underlying claims clearly lack merit, as evidenced by our affirmance of the district court’s summary judgment rulings . . . . Myra, 107 F.3d at 475. We thus find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with respect to the equal protection claims. 3. Denial of Motion to Add Christopher Jimenez as a Class Representative Plaintiffs also challenge the district court’s denial of their motion to add Christopher Jimenez as a class representative. On February 6, 1996, Christopher Jimenez, who is Hispanic, and his fiance, Stacie Tiffany, who is white, were driving northbound on I-55 in Sangamon County, Illinois, in Tiffany’s car. Tiffany was driving and admits that she was exceeding the speed limit. Jimenez alleges that ISP Trooper Robert Jennings, a Valkyrie officer, was parked at the side of the road looking at them with binoculars. Trooper Jennings admits that he has been able to detect the race of an occupant of a vehicle by using his binoculars in the past. Jennings saw but did not stop hundreds of other speeders that day. Jennings Dep. at 42. He explained that Tiffany’s speeding and the fact that a male passenger was slumping in the front seat while wearing a baseball cap drew his attention to Tiffany’s vehicle. Jennings followed the vehicle and saw Tiffany fail to signal prior to changing lanes. He then stopped her, stating that he did so because she was speeding and failed to signal properly. He asked both Tiffany and Jimenez for their drivers’ licenses and asked Tiffany questions about the nature of her relationship with Jimenez. According to Trooper Jennings, he is more likely to ask questions about the relationship between vehicle occupants if they are of different races. Although Jennings testified that he did not have a suspicion or a strong feeling that contraband was in the vehicle, he asked Tiffany for her permission to search her car. Plaintiffs say Jennings justified his request by explaining that in the past we had made drug seizures from mixed race couples. Jennings Dep. at 76. Tiffany consented. Jennings inspected and patted down the soft-surface bags in the trunk and patted down the area where the convertible’s top is stored. He did not discover any contraband. Jimenez filed a written complaint with the ISP one week later, which the ISP deemed unfounded. Nonetheless, Jennings received counseling to make him aware that what he says can impact negatively upon the public, regardless of his intent. While Jimenez resides in Michigan, plaintiffs allege that he travels on Illinois highways several times per year, although his prior experience with the ISP has so intimidated him that he avoids I-55. The plaintiffs identified Jimenez as part of the putative plaintiff class in July 1996, when they filed their fourth amended class action complaint. Almost three years later, on April 2, 1999, the plaintiffs moved to add Jimenez as a new named plaintiff pursuant to Rules 15(a) and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs’ motion was untimely, to say the least: fact discovery had closed in August 1997, a final pre-trial order was scheduled to be filed on July 15, 1999, and the trial date was set for September 7, 1999. Magistrate Judge Bobrick denied the plaintiffs’ motion. Although he concluded that the plaintiffs met the literal standard for joinder set forth in Rule 20(a), he determined that the court had discretion to deny a motion for joinder where it would cause delay, prejudice, or expense and found that adding a plaintiff would do all of those things. Chavez v. Ill. State Police, No. 94 CV 5307, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Ill. June 4, 1999). He noted that plaintiffs had known about Jimenez’s claims for nearly three years but offered no explanation as to why they were unable to add Jimenez as a named plaintiff earlier. Plaintiffs objected to the magistrate’s order, but on appeal, the district judge found that the order was not clearly erroneous, agreeing that joinder of Jimenez would be prejudicial and that the plaintiffs delayed in seeking to add him as a named plaintiff. The district judge echoed the