The standards of Rule 23(b)(2) are met by a class of plaintiffs complaining of traffic stops of persons of Hispanic appearance. They met the commonality requirement; differences in circumstances among the stops are not material when the challenge is to an unlawful common pattern and practice. The litigation is not unmanageable, since courts can limit cumulative testimony and much of the case could be addressed with documentary evidence. An unlawful pattern of activity in itself constitutes a common question of law or fact. The same rationale supports typicality.
The dissenting judge relies heavily on Lewis v. Casey. See: Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 165 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 1999).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina
|Cite||165 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 1999)|
|Level||Court of Appeals|