J. v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

The case concerns a mass arrest of more than 100 people, many of them minors, on July 8, 2023, after the unsanctioned “Dolores Hill Bomb” skateboarding event. The plaintiffs assert claims under the Fourth Amendment through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California Civil Code section 52.1, California false-arrest and false-imprisonment law, negligence, and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, including possible expungement of arrest records.

The plaintiffs presented declarations describing people being surrounded by police, required to sit outside for roughly two hours, separated by age and gender, restrained with zip ties, held in vehicles or buses, and denied or delayed access to bathrooms, food, or water. A police incident report described officers’ account that event participants had engaged in dangerous or destructive conduct and that Captain Thomas Harvey ordered the mass arrest. The court stated that the evidence summaries did not resolve disputed facts.

Class-Certification Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a proposed class must satisfy requirements concerning numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. It must also satisfy at least one additional Rule 23(b) requirement. The plaintiffs relied on Rule 23(b)(2), concerning classwide declaratory or injunctive relief, and Rule 23(b)(3), concerning predominance of common questions and superiority of class treatment. The court emphasized that class certification is not the stage for deciding the underlying merits except as necessary to evaluate the Rule 23 requirements.

Analysis

The court found numerosity satisfied because the proposed class included more than 100 people. It found commonality for the false-arrest claims because whether defendants, particularly Captain Harvey, had sufficient cause to conduct the mass arrest was a question common to the class. Defense counsel conceded that the false-arrest claims rose or fell together because the arrests were conducted pursuant to a single decision.

For the conditions-of-confinement claims, the court found that the detainees’ treatment differed after they were separated into adults, minor girls, and minor boys. The court concluded that each named plaintiff was sufficiently typical of the people in the corresponding group, but not of the other groups without subclasses. It therefore required three subclasses: minor girls, minor boys, and adults. The court also found the adequacy requirement satisfied, finding no significant conflict or other deficiency involving the plaintiffs or their counsel.

For declaratory and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), the defendants did not oppose certification insofar as the plaintiffs sought a declaration that defendants’ conduct violated their rights. The court did not decide what injunctive remedy, if any, would be appropriate. It noted that the plaintiffs had shifted from seeking “exoneration” as such toward seeking expungement of arrest records, and that the merits of entitlement to relief would be addressed later.

For Rule 23(b)(3), the court found that common issues predominated and that class treatment was superior to individual adjudication. It held that damages did not prevent certification on the current record. The plaintiffs sought only general damages, not special damages for out-of-pocket losses. The court concluded that general damages could feasibly and fairly be assessed using the length of detention and the applicable subclass, while reserving authority to revisit that conclusion if later evidence showed meaningful variation beyond those factors.

Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in large part and certified a class under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3): all people arrested in the 3500 block of 17th Street in San Francisco on July 8, 2023, in the mass arrest occurring at approximately 8:40 p.m. The question whether defendants had sufficient cause to conduct the mass arrest will be addressed for the class as a whole.

For conditions-of-confinement claims and damages, the court certified subclasses of: (1) people defendants categorized as girls under 18 when detained; (2) people defendants categorized as boys under 18 when detained; and (3) people defendants categorized as adults at least 18 when detained. For injunctive relief, the class excludes people charged after their release with a crime connected to the Dolores Hill Bomb events; those people may pursue injunctive relief individually if the plaintiffs prevail on the merits of a claim.

The court appointed J.T., C.L., L.R., S.H., and Jack Brundage as class representatives. It appointed J.T., C.L., and L.R. to represent the minor-girl subclass, S.H. to represent the minor-boy subclass, and Jack Brundage to represent the adult subclass. It appointed the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, the Community Law Office, and Bobbie Stein as class counsel. The defendants were ordered to produce the unredacted police incident report containing the putative class members’ names, if they had not already done so, and the parties were directed to meet and confer about proposed class notice.