Wright et al v. City of Wilmington

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 52 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting 30 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 3 Motion to Certify Class; finding as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss ; finding as moot 15 Motion for Protective Order; finding as moot 17 Motion to Compel. The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Fallon to conduct a scheduling conference consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 3/31/2016. (nmfn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JAYVON WRIGHT, ANTOINE
MURREY, and KEITH MEDLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CITY OF WILMINGTON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 13-1966-SLR/SRF

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this 31 51 day of March, 2016, having reviewed the Report and
Recommendation (''R&R") issued by the Honorable Sherry R. Fallon on January 28,
2016 (D.I. 52), as well as the objections thereto and the papers (D.I. 53, 55, 58, 59)
filed in connection therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R is adopted, and objections are overruled, for the
following reasons:
1. Standard of Review. The court is charged with conducting a de novo review
of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which specific, written
objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d
1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). The court may "accept, reject, or modify the report of
the magistrate judge, on whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the
magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Although review is de novo, the district court,
in exercising its sound discretion, is permitted to rely on the recommendations of the

magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S.
667, 676-677 (1980); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).
2. Background. Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
that the court deny plaintiffs' motion for class certification, as well as the
recommendation that the motion to compel be denied. (D.I. 55) They contend that the
R&R is flawed because the findings with respect to class certification and precertification discovery are inconsistent with controlling precedent. Specifically, plaintiffs
argue that the Magistrate Judge failed to follow the analysis used in Stinson v. City of
New York, 282 F.R.D. 360 (S.D. N.Y 2012) on allegations of an unconstitutional pattern

and practice by a police department, similar to the claims at bar. Defendant counters
that Stinson is distinguishable and non-binding authority. (D.I. 55)
3. Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny its
motion to dismiss as moot and to grant plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint,
arguing that the proposed amended complaint would not cure deficiencies (failure to
state claims regarding an unconstitutional policy and an unconstitutional custom and
practice) found in the original complaint. (D.I. 53) Plaintiffs respond, asserting that the
Magistrate Judge did not err in finding the amended complaint was warranted and
sufficient. (D. I. 58)
4. Discussion. Beginning with the class certification objection to the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge properly commenced the analysis by setting forth the four
requirements under Rule 23(a), before turning to the Third Circuit's additional
requirement - ascertainability. Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 306-307 (3d Cir.

2

2013). The Magistrate Judge concluded that in order to ascertain members of plaintiffs'
proposed class, the court would have to conduct "individualized fact-finding and minitrials in contravention of Third Circuit precedent." (D.I. 52 at 7)
5. The court finds no error in this finding. In Carrera, the Third Circuit explained
the reasoning behind the ascertainability requirement and encouraged courts to
conduct a vigorous analysis to determine whether a plaintiff has demonstrated, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the class is "currently and readily ascertainable
based on objective criteria." Carrera, 727 F.3d at 306 (quoting Marcus v. BMW of North
America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 593 (3d Cir. 2012)). The R&R reflects a careful and well-

reasoned consideration of the problems associated with sifting through police records
to find which individuals were detained under the conditions set forth in the proposed
class and then determining which of these individuals were detained based on
reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Although plaintiffs maintain that the Stinson
court successfully found ascertainability on similar facts, the court finds the case
inapposite. The Stinson court modified the class "to capture only those summons
dismissed for want of probable cause" and to "ensure that the class is not overlyinclusive, the class certified [was] defined to include individuals who were issued
summonses that were later dismissed upon a judicial finding of facial insufficiency and
who were ticketed without probable cause." Stinson, 282 F.R.D. at 377. Significantly,
in Stinson, there were two levels of review: "first stage defect review" and then a judicial
finding on facial insufficiency. Id. At bar, there has been no judicial determination of a
lack of probable cause or reasonable suspicion with respect to plaintiffs' proposed

3

class. As a result, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the identification of
the potential members of the proposed class would require the court to engage in
individualized fact finding and mini-trials. 1
6. With respect to the recommendation to deny the motion to dismiss as moot
and to grant amendment of the complaint, the court finds the R&R correctly considered
the issues, appropriately concluded that amendment would not be futile, and did not
abuse its discretion in so recommending. The allegations in the amended complaint
(taken as true) sufficiently state violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the policy, custom, or
practice and the failure to train claims.
7. Conclusion. The objections are overruled and R&R is adopted.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
a. Plaintiffs' motion to certify class (D.I. 3) is denied. Plaintiffs' motion to
compel (D.I. 17) is denied as moot. Plaintiffs' motion to amend (D.I. 30) is granted.
b. Defendant's motions to dismiss (D.I. 10) and for a protective order (D.I.
15) are denied as moot.
c. The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Fallon to conduct a
scheduling conference consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b).

1

Given that the ascertainability requirement is an essential requirement for a
class action, it is unnecessary to address the remaining objections to the R&R on class
certification.

4