The University of Michigan
Information on Admissions Lawsuits

News Releases & Articles | Statements by University Leaders & Others | Press Kits, Photos & Media Contacts
¡En Español! | Archived Documents | U-M News Service | U-M Gateway

Supporting Research Court Filings Legal Overview FAQs What's New Admissions Lawsuits Home Page
The University of Michigan
Information on Admissions Lawsuits

News Releases & Articles | Statements by University Leaders & Others | Press Kits, Photos & Media Contacts
¡En Español! | Archived Documents | U-M News Service | U-M Gateway

Supporting Research Court Filings Legal Overview FAQs What's New Admissions Lawsuits Home Page

Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and for Bifurcation in Gratz

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented .......................iii

Controlling Authorities ..........................iii

Introduction ..........................1

Factual Background ................................1

Argument ..............................4

I.     The Proposed Class Satisfied The Requirements Established

By Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23......................................4

A.  The Proposed Class Meets the Requirements of Rule 23(a)...4

    1.  Numerosity ..........................4

    2.  Commonality ...........................6

    3.  Typicality ...........................8

    4.  Adequacy of Representation ..............................9

B.  The Proposed Class Fits Squarely Within Rules 23(b)(1) & (2).....10

    1.  Plaintiff Hamacher's Claims Qualify for an Injunctive
         and Declaratory Class Under Rule 23(b)(2) ......10

         a. Plaintiff Hamacher Does Not Seek Primarily
             Monetary Damages ...................11

         b. Plaintiff and the Class Do Not Limit Their Claims
             to Damages for Past Injury; The Class Includes
             Future Applicants .....................12

         c. Plaintiff Hamacher Has Standing to Represent a
             Rule 23(b)(2) Class ...................12

         d. No Rule of "Necessity" Precludes 23(b)(2) Certification...14

i





    2.  Plaintiffs' Claims Also Qualify for Class
         Certification Under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) ................16

C.  Alternatively, Plaintiffs' Claims Qualify for
      Certification Under Rule 23(b)(3) ...................18

D.  Plaintiffs' Punitive Damages Claims Qualify
      for Class Certification ............20

II.    Bifurcation of Liability and Damages Trials is Appropriate ..............22

Conclusion .......................24

ii


Memorandum Questions Presented &
Controlling Authorities (next sections)
  |  
Gratz case menu

Questions? Comments? Please send e-mail to diversitymatters@umich.edu.
Site last updated: September 5, 2012.   Copyright © 1997–2013 Regents of the University of Michigan.