Allen v. City of New York

Background

The court had previously denied a motion for class certification filed by Plaintiffs Annette Birdsong and Herbert Richardson. The plaintiffs then moved under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration. In the alternative, they requested permission to appeal the class-certification ruling under Rules 23(f) and 54(b).

Reconsideration

The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration. Relief is available when there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or correction is needed to address clear error or prevent serious injustice.

The court held that the plaintiffs did not meet that standard. It found that most of their arguments repeated points made in their original papers. The court also rejected their reliance on Shabazz v. Morgan Funding Corp., explaining that the decision was not controlling, had not been cited in the original motion papers, and did not state the correct legal standard. The court likewise determined that Chalmers v. City of New York did not change controlling law because it was another district-court decision and merely applied settled law to different facts. The plaintiffs identified no new evidence and no evidence that the court had overlooked.

The court separately rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that it should have accepted their pleadings as true when deciding class certification. Relying on Rule 23 and Supreme Court and appellate precedent, the court explained that class certification is not decided under a pleading-only standard. The party seeking certification must affirmatively establish each requirement, and the court must conduct a rigorous analysis, consider evidence beyond the pleadings, resolve relevant factual disputes, and weigh the relevant facts. The court also noted that some of the plaintiffs’ allegations were conclusory and therefore did not automatically receive a presumption of truth.

Request for permission to appeal

The court denied the alternative request for permission to appeal. It explained that Rule 23(f) authorizes a court of appeals—not the district court—to permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class certification. Rule 54(b), which can allow final judgment on an individual claim while other claims remain unresolved, did not apply because class-certification orders are interlocutory, meaning they are not final judgments.

The opinion noted that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) can provide district-court authority to permit an appeal from certain interlocutory orders, but the plaintiffs had not requested permission under that statute.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, for leave to appeal. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion and reminded the parties to file a joint letter concerning settlement efforts and summary-judgment briefing.