Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-03866
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland, Judge Spero required a supplemental joint brief before deciding whether to certify the proposed class.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and proposed class members in the case were affected because the parties had to provide additional briefing before the court could decide whether to certify the class.
What happened
In Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland, the parties had agreed to ask the court to certify a class of people affected by munitions used during protests.
The court said it had to independently determine whether the proposed class met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, even though the parties had agreed to certification. The court previously denied class certification without prejudice because it had concerns about commonality, typicality, and other requirements, including whether the class was limited to peaceful protesters and whether the alleged conduct involved a common policy.
Judge Spero ordered the parties to provide a supplemental joint brief explaining why their proposed class definition satisfied Rule 23 and addressing the court’s concerns. The order did not certify the class.
The detailed version
- Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland · No. 3:20-cv-03866
- Joseph Spero
- Jan. 10, 2022
Background
The parties stipulated, or agreed, to seek certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court explained that the parties’ agreement did not eliminate the court’s independent duty to determine whether every class-certification requirement was satisfied.
In an earlier order, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice. The court found that the proposed class definition did not satisfy the requirements of commonality and typicality, and did not satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). The court was concerned, among other things, that the proposed class was not limited to peaceful protesters and included people subjected to munitions deployed by both Oakland Police Department officers and mutual-aid partners. The court also stated that it was unclear whether any named plaintiff had been subjected to munitions deployed by mutual-aid partners rather than Oakland Police Department officers, and whether all the tear-gas uses affecting class members resulted from a common policy or course of conduct at the command-staff level.
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit a supplemental joint brief addressing why their proposed class definition met Rule 23 and responding to the specific concerns identified in the earlier order. The opinion excerpt does not state a filing deadline. The court did not certify the class in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.