Carter v. The City of Montgomery et al (JOINT ASSIGN)
MEMORANDUM OPINION: Based on the foregoing, the Court will DENY the 306 motion for class certification and DENY the 332 motion to reconsider by separate order. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 12/23/2020. (amf, )
Case 2:15-cv-00555-RCL-SMD Document 369 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ALDARESS CARTER,et al., individually
and on behalf ofa class of similarly situated
Case No. 2:15-ev-555-RCL
THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY,et al.,
Before the Court is plaintiff Aldaress Carter's motion of class certification(ECF No. 306)
and defendant Judicial Correction Services, Inc.'s("JCS") motion to reconsider(ECF No. 332)
Today,the Court issued an opinion in McCullough v. City ofMontgomery(Case No. 2:15cv-463) addressing motions that paralleled the motions currently before it in this case. Mr. Carter
and the McCullough plaintiffs briefed their class certification motions together; JCS submitted the
same motion to reconsider in both cases; the Court conducted its motions hearing in both cases,
simultaneously. The Court's reasoning in McCullough, therefore, resolves these motions as well.
The parties fully briefed the motion for class certification (ECF No. 307, 320, 322, 325,
348) and motion to reconsider(ECF No. 344, 353) They also submitted evidence in support of
the class certification briefs(ECF No. 308, 321, 324, 326, 349) and at the hearing(ECF No. 358,
360, 361, 362; 363, 364, 365, 366-2). Upon consideration ofthe motions; briefs in support ofand opposition thereto; evidentiary
subrnissions; all other papers of record; and the arguments made,testimony offered, and evidence
received over the course of a ten-hour hearing, the Court will:
Case 2:15-cv-00555-RCL-SMD Document 369 Filed 12/23/20 Page 2 of 3
• DENY the rnotion for class certification; and,
• DENY JCS' motion to reconsider.
A. Motion to Reconsider
The Court denies JCS's motion to reconsider. See McCullough, slip op. 19-27.
B. Class Certification
Mr. Carter seeks to certify a City class (together with two subclasses) and a false
The.City class is defined identically to the Bearden class in McCullough, except that the
Mr. Carter's class period starts a few months later. Compare Mot. Class Certification 1 with Mot.
Class Certification 1 (McCullough ECF No. 281). As the McCullough plaintiffs failed to satisfy
their burden to show that their class was ascertainable, so too has Mr. Carter. See McCullough,
slip op. 29-34. And because the class cannot be ascertained, neither can the subclasses.
Mr. Carter's false imprisonment class id defined identically to the false imprisonment class
in McCullough, except that Mr. Carter's class period starts a few months later. Compare Mot.
Class. Certification 2 with Mot. Class Certification 1 (McCullough ECF No. 281). As the
McCullough plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden to show that their class was ascertainable, so
too has Mr. Carter. See McCullough, slip op. 34.
The motion for class certification must be denied.
The Court concludes that consolidation of this case and McCullough is not appropriate.
See McCullough, slip op. 37.
Case 2:15-cv-00555-RCL-SMD Document 369 Filed 12/23/20 Page 3 of 3
Based on the foregoing, the Court will DENY the motion for class certification and DENY
the motion to reconsider by separate order.
Royce C. Lamberth
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?