Torres v. MMS Group LLC. d/b/a MMS Group

Background

Elewood Torres brought federal and state claims for himself and others similarly situated against MMS Group LLC, New York City Housing Preservation and Development, New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, NYSD Housing Development Fund Corporation, NYSD Forsyth Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., T.U.C. Management Company, Inc., and New York Society for the Deaf. He alleged that the defendants failed to maintain buildings so they were independently usable by deaf or hearing-impaired people and failed to provide housing access for people with disabilities.

Torres moved to certify classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo recommended certifying classes for Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, and Eleven, with modifications to several class definitions. The Housing Defendants and T.U.C. objected to the recommendation, and Torres also objected to the recommended narrowing of the class periods.

Class-Certification Standards

Rule 23(a) requires numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, along with an implied requirement that class members be identifiable through objective criteria. Rule 23(b) requires satisfaction of at least one additional basis for class treatment. The court reviewed the objections under the standards governing objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, conducting a fresh review of properly raised objections and reviewing other portions for clear error.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Torres had adequately alleged an injury sufficient for Article III standing at the class-certification stage. It found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s conclusions that the Rule 23(a) requirements were satisfied, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and ascertainability. The court also found no error in the conclusion that Rule 23(b)(3), which concerns whether common issues predominate and whether a class action is superior to individual lawsuits, was satisfied.

The court rejected or declined to reconsider most of the defendants’ objections because they repeated arguments previously made, raised arguments that had been available earlier, or did not adequately explain the claimed error. It also rejected the defendants’ challenge to the magistrate judge’s use of cited class-action decisions.

The court reviewed Torres’s objection to the shortened class periods for clear error and found none. It therefore kept the recommended periods: for Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Eleven, the classes cover hearing-impaired and/or deaf residents and visitors of the 184 Premises and the 174 Premises on or after July 19, 2019. For Count Ten, the classes cover those residents and visitors on or after July 19, 2020. The opinion does not further identify the 184 Premises or the 174 Premises.

No party objected to the recommendation to deny class certification for Counts One and Two or to the recommendation that Rule 23(b)(2) was not satisfied. The court reviewed those recommendations for clear error and found none.

Sealing Motion and Disposition

The Housing Defendants moved to seal sensitive medical information submitted with their objections. The court granted that motion, finding that protecting private health information justified sealing and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.

Judge Dale E. Ho adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and certified the classes consistent with it. The Clerk was directed to terminate the class-certification motion, ECF No. 128, and the sealing motion, ECF No. 175.