Boykin et al v. 1 Prospect Park ALF, L.L.C. et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER to Broadcast Summary Judgment Hearing: The parties are directed to arrange for audio broadcasting of the summary judgment hearing scheduled for November 14, 2013. The parties are permitted thirty (30) days to object to this order. The parties shall contact the court's deputy, June Lowe, 718-613-2525, to arrange for compliance. Ordered by Judge Jack B. Weinstein, on 7/25/2013. (Barrett, C)

Fn:.eo

; IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S; DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

*: JUL 3 0 2013 *
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BROOKLYN OFFICE
:~

SAMUEL BOYKIN, as administrator of the
Estate of JOHN L. PHILLIPS, and MELVIN
DOZIER and KEVIN DOZIER, as CoGuardians of IRENE DOZIER, an
Incapacitated Person, and MELVIN DOZIER
and KEVIN DOZIER, and GEORGIA LEWIS
as administrator of the Estate of MARY JOAN
- BARNETT, Individually and on behalf of all

Memorandum and 'Order to
Broadcast Summary Judgment
Hearing
No. 12-CV-6243

others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-against1 PROSPECT PARK ALF, LLC, PROSPECT
PARK RESIDENCE HOME HEALTH CARE,
INC., PROSPECT PARK RESIDENCE LLC,
KOHL ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., and
KOHL PAR1NERS, LLC
Defendants.

JACK B. W~INSTEIN, Senior United States District Judge:

.

.

The parties are directed to arrange for audio broadcasting of the swnmary judgment
~!

hearing scheduled for November 14, 2013. If practicable, video live-streaming d,fthe hearing
;

shall be provided. Reception shall be in a communal room at Prospect Park Res~dence where
putative class members may listen to and/or view the proceedings. See ECF No;;41 . Prominent
.

'

notice of the transmission shall be provided to putative class members no fewer than fifteen ( 15)
days in advance of the hearing.
Technological advances have mooted the idea that depersonalization is required in
aggregate litigation. The Internet and social networking tools are means of creating more
efficient communication among lawyers, clients and the court. See generally Th.e
'

1

\

Democratization ofMass Actions in the Internet Age, 45 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Problems 451
(2012).
In the instant litigation, the legal representatives of three former residents of Prospect
Park Residence, an assisted living residence located in Brooklyn, New York, se~k relief on
behalf of themselves and a putative class. They sue defendants which either have an ownership
or management stake in Prospect Park Residence. Alleged is that defendants intentionally
misrepresented that the facility was licensed under New York law when no

lice~se

had been

acquired, causing an overcharge for rent.
The individual members of the putative class are mainly elderly, frail

an~

with little

·I

knowledge of civil litigations. Their legal representatives must help them navigate the complex
web of federal, state and local laws that govern the delicate-and difficult-task of caring for
those needing assisted living.
Trial courts are vested with an inherent power to achieve orderly and ex{>editious
disposition of cases. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (•
1962) (inherent
authority to "prevent undue delays in the disposition of cases and to avoid cong~stion in the
calendars of the District Courts"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ("just, speedy, and inexpens.ive determination
of every action and proceeding"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a) (authority to "establish[] early and
continuing control so that the case will not be protracted because of lack of m~agemerit") . See

also Local R. 1.8 of the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. and E. Dists. of N.Y. (2013) (dfscretion to
broadcast court proceeding rests with court officials). The ability of class members and courts to

monitor lawyers and class representatives in the pursuit of individual justice thrbugh aggregate
litigation should be enhanced to the extent practicable. See generally Individual Justice in Mass

2

Tort Litigation: The Effects of Class Actions, Consolidations, and Other Multiparty Devices
(1995).
A primary objective of the trial judge presiding over an aggregate action' is to "ensure that
the clients receive fair information" from their attorneys and class representatives. See Alvin K.
Hellerstein, Presiding Over Mass Tort Litigation to Enhance Participation and Control by the
'

People Whose Claims Are Being Asserted, 45 Colurn. J.L. & Soc. Problems 473,477 (2012).
Appropriate attention must be given to ensuring that adequate information about the litigation
reaches the real parties in interest and the communities which may be affected by the court's
decisions. Ultimately, an informed decision to participate or not in the litigatio-9 may have to be
made by individual members of the class should they be in a position to opt out'~of it.
Connecting the court with the community its work might affect is

essent~al.

Cf In re

Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 597 F. Supp. 740,764-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) (describing
i:

communications received by court from class members). Open, accessible and well-advertised
hearings provide the best opportunity for contact between the court and litigants.
The parties are permitted thirty (30) days to object to this order. The parties shall contact
the court's deputy, Miss June Lowe, 718-613-2525, to arrange for compliance. .

SO ORDERED.

Jack B. Wei stein .,
Senior Unit d States District Judge
Dated: July 25, 2013
Brooklyn, New York

3