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