Opinion ID: 3062245
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Commonality, Typicality, and Adequacy

Text: Abercrombie argues that the Plaintiffs failed to meet Rule 23(a)’s remaining requirements—commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Aplt. Br. 5152. Because these requirements “tend to merge,” Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551 20 n.5, and because Abercrombie does not address them separately, we address them together. First, Abercrombie argues that tester plaintiffs cannot assert claims common to or typical of a class of bona fide patrons. See Aplt. Br. 51-52. This argument lacks merit. As mentioned, a plaintiff’s status as tester is irrelevant in determining whether she has suffered an injury in fact under Title III of the ADA. To maintain a class action, a “class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” WalMart, 131 S. Ct. at 2550 (internal quotation marks omitted). The interest asserted here is the same—the right to be free from disability discrimination in a place of public accommodation—as is the alleged injury—denial of that right by porches at Hollister stores. Elsewhere, Abercrombie again raises the specter of standing and argues that, because Ms. Farrar does not intend to visit every Hollister store with a porch, she lacks standing to obtain a nationwide injunction, and her status as class representative does not cure her lack of standing. Aplt. Br. 25. This argument conflates standing and the ability to represent a class under Rule 23. What Abercrombie challenges is whether Ms. Farrar presents “questions of law or fact common to the class” and a claim “typical of” the class when she has only visited one of the many stores against which the class seeks relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 21 The commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) do not require that every member of the class share a fact situation identical to that of the named plaintiff. Devaughn, 594 F.3d at 1195; see also Realmonte v. Reeves, 169 F.3d 1280, 1285 (10th Cir. 1999). “[D]iffering fact situations of class members do not defeat typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) so long as the claims of the class representative and class members are based on the same legal or remedial theory.” Adamson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 668, 676 (10th Cir. 1988). The class’s “common contention ‘must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.’” XTO Energy, 725 F.3d at 1218 (quoting Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551). Given this authority, it is untenable to suggest that Ms. Farrar cannot represent a class unless she shares a factually identical claim with each class member—that she visit every Hollister store that the class claims violates the ADA. Her claim against the Park Meadows Hollister is “common to” the claims of the class because it raises a common question of law—whether Hollister stores’ porched entrances violate the ADA. 6 Her claim is “typical of” the class’s even 6 Before the district court, Abercrombie argued that class certification was inappropriate because Hollister stores utilize varying designs in their porch layout. II Aplt. App. 690, 692. On appeal, Abercrombie does not raise this issue, and we are satisfied that the porches are sufficiently similar as to pose a common question of law. 22 though she has not visited the remaining 230 stores. These claims are based on the same legal and remedial theory—that Title III of the ADA mandates injunctive relief against the porches. These claims are capable of classwide resolution. In this regard, it is telling that Abercrombie does not challenge the district court’s decision to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2), i.e., that Abercrombie “acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief . . . is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” II Aplt. App. 695 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)) (emphasis added). The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) met, and it appropriately certified the class. We now turn to the merits of the class’s ADA claim.