Lewis v. The Government of England and the United Kingdom
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-10792
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lewis v. The Government of England and the United Kingdom, Judge Rochon denied Lewis’s motion to reconsider denial of class certification.
Marion T.D. Lewis’s effort to represent a class was affected; the order denied her request to reconsider the earlier denial of class certification.
What happened
Marion T.D. Lewis sued the Government of England and the United Kingdom and the Institution of the British Monarchy or the Crown. After the court denied her request to certify a class, she asked the court to reconsider that decision.
Lewis, a lawyer representing herself, argued that she could represent the class because she would give up any attorney’s fees. Her request was filed after the 14-day deadline, but the court considered it anyway.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the motion. The court held that giving up fees did not resolve the conflict created by Lewis serving both as the class representative and the class lawyer, and it was not convinced that she could adequately represent the class.
The detailed version
- Lewis v. The Government of England and the United Kingdom · No. 1:22-cv-10792
- Rochon
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
Marion T.D. Lewis, a lawyer representing herself, filed this action on December 21, 2022, and filed an amended complaint on December 28, 2022. On January 29, 2023, she moved to certify a class, meaning she sought permission to pursue claims on behalf of other people. The court denied that motion on January 31, explaining that a self-represented plaintiff cannot represent the interests of third parties and cannot adequately represent other class members as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Lewis filed a letter on March 30, 2023, asking the court to reconsider the denial. She said she did not receive notice of the January 31 order until March 28. The court noted that the reconsideration request was filed after the 14-day deadline in Local Civil Rule 6.3, but it chose to consider the request on its merits.
Arguments and analysis
Lewis argued that, because she is an attorney, she could represent the class while proceeding without a lawyer, particularly because she was willing to give up attorney’s fees. The court rejected that reasoning. It explained that waiving fees did not eliminate the conflict created by Lewis serving simultaneously as the class representative and class counsel. A class representative must be personally invested in the outcome, while class counsel should not have a personal interest in that outcome; the court found that these roles could not be reconciled in one person.
The court also was not convinced that Lewis could adequately represent the class under Rule 23(a)(4). It found that Lewis had not identified controlling decisions or information the court had overlooked that could reasonably change its earlier decision. Reconsideration is therefore subject to a strict standard and is not a way to relitigate issues or obtain a second hearing.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon stated: “Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.” The opinion denied Lewis’s motion for reconsideration of the class-certification ruling. It did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.