Marisol A. ex rel. Forbes v. Giuliani
126 F.3d 372 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A broad and diverse class of plaintiffs may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 if their varied injuries are alleged to stem from a unitary course of conduct or a single, system-wide failure. However, to ensure manageable and fair litigation, the court must later divide the class into appropriate subclasses, each with suitable representatives and distinct legal claims.
Facts:
- Eleven named plaintiffs, all children, alleged they were harmed by New York City's child welfare system.
- The alleged harms were diverse, including failure to investigate abuse reports, delays in removing children from dangerous homes, inadequate supervision of foster parents, and failure to secure appropriate adoptive placements.
- Plaintiffs claimed these varied injuries all resulted from the systemic operational failures of the city's child welfare system.
- The proposed plaintiff class included all children who are or will be in the custody of the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS).
- The proposed class also included children not in ACS custody but who are or will be at risk of neglect or abuse and whose situations are, or should be, known to ACS.
- The total number of children in the proposed class was estimated to be over 100,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Eleven named plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Mayor of New York and other officials.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
- The defendants opposed the motion for class certification.
- The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion and certified a class of all children in the custody of, or at risk of harm known to, the city's child welfare system.
- The defendants (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the plaintiffs were appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the certification of a broad plaintiff class, consisting of all children in or at risk of entering New York City's child welfare system, satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when the individual members allege a wide variety of distinct injuries and legal violations?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The certification of the broad plaintiff class satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 at this preliminary stage. The court reasoned that while the district court's generalized characterization of the claims 'stretches the notions of commonality and typicality,' it was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiffs allege their injuries derive from a 'unitary course of conduct by a single system.' The court found common questions of law ('whether each child has a legal entitlement to the services of which that child is being deprived') and fact ('whether defendants systematically have failed to provide these legally mandated services'). The court emphasized that Rule 23 is to be construed liberally and cited precedent from other circuits certifying similar classes in institutional reform cases. The affirmance was conditioned on the expectation that the district court would fulfill its duty under Rule 23(c)(4) to create subclasses before trial to manage the distinct legal claims and ensure the litigation is orderly and fair to the defendants.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the flexibility of the class action device, particularly in large-scale institutional reform litigation targeting systemic failures of government agencies. It establishes that a court can certify a broad 'super-class' based on an abstract common theory of harm, even where individual injuries vary widely. The ruling underscores the critical role of subclasses as a management tool, allowing courts to balance the efficiency of a class action with the need to adjudicate specific, diverse claims fairly. This approach has become a model for subsequent cases challenging systemic deficiencies in areas like foster care, prisons, and mental health services.
