Opinion ID: 2794546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Concession of Liability and Judgment

Text: In 1999, the plaintiffs brought three separate actions, later consolidated, alleging they had been arrested on misdemeanor charges and were strip searched, without individualized suspicion, in violation of their federal and state constitutional rights. Nassau County conceded liability “for all purposes” in light of our holding in Shain v. Ellison, 273 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2001), that the strip search policy violated the Fourth Amendment. After the district court denied multiple motions for class certification, Nassau County entered into a settlement agreement with the ten named plaintiffs, who expressly retained the right to appeal the denial of certification on behalf of the putative class. On appeal, we instructed the district court to certify a class as to liability and to consider whether to certify a class as to damages. In re Nassau Cnty. Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d 219, 230‐31 (2d Cir. 2006). The district court certified both classes, granted summary judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiffs in light of Nassau County’s concession, and held a bench trial on damages. In 2012, before the district court entered final judgment, Nassau County moved to vacate the summary judgment order and to dismiss the action based 4 on the Supreme Court’s decision in Florence, 132 S. Ct. at 1513 (holding that “every detainee who will be admitted to the general population [of a jail] may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed”). The district court granted the motion as to the federal claim, holding that Florence constituted an intervening change in controlling law. As to the state law claim, however, the district court determined that Florence did not warrant vacatur of Nassau County’s concession of liability. The district court entered final judgment, awarding $11.5 million to the class on the state claim, and directed Nassau County to deposit the funds with the court within 30 days. The parties filed cross‐appeals from that judgment, which are currently pending.