Fletcher, et al v. USA, et al

Filing 1196

OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; granting 1148 Motion to Certify Class (hbo, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WILLIAM S. FLETCHER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 02-CV-427-GKF-PJC

OPINION and ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the Motion to Certify Class [Dkt. # 1148] of

plaintiffs William S. Fletcher, et al. The United States responded [Dkt. # 1154], agreeing that a
class should be certified.
Plaintiffs have one remaining claim—that the Federal Defendants have failed to fulfill
their statutory duties to provide an accounting.
Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
All Indians who currently, or during the pendency of this litigation have received
Section 4 Royalty Payments from the segregated fund as determined and
calculated by the Defendants, as trustee, pursuant to the 1906 Act § 4 (as
amended).
[Dkt. # 1148, p. 10]. Defendants do not object to plaintiffs’ class definition, nor do they argue
that the proposed class does not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1
Prior to certifying a class, plaintiffs must first demonstrate that the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) are met: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); see Gelder v. Coxcom, Inc., 696 F.3d 966, 968 (10th Cir. 2012).
Numerosity requires that the “class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.”

1

Defendants caution that plaintiffs’ class definition may exclude certain claims [Dkt. # 1154, pp. 6-8]; such
arguments do not implicate the appropriateness of class certification.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Previously in this litigation, the court witnessed the complexity of
dealing with approximately 1,700 non-Indian headright owners named as individual defendants.
The court declined to certify a defendants’ class on the grounds that defenses would likely be
individualized and not typical of the class. [Dkt. # 1123]. Dealing with 4,000 plaintiffs
individually who share a common interest in an accounting would be impracticable. Thus, the
proposed class fulfills the requirement of numerosity.
Commonality requires that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Here, plaintiffs allege the Federal Defendants owe all Indians who currently,
or during the pendency of this litigation, have received Section 4 Royalty Payments a duty to
account. The trust responsibilities plaintiffs seek to enforce arise from 25 U.S.C. § 4011. This
statute creates a number of federal responsibilities in administering trusts to benefit Indian tribes
and individual Indians. Since all proposed class members are Indian headright owners, there
would be common questions of law and fact relating to the accounting claim. The proposed
class fulfills the requirement of commonality.
Typicality requires “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The class representatives, as Indian
headright owners, and the proposed plaintiffs’ class of all Indian headright owners benefit from
the same set of rights under 25 U.S.C. § 4011. Therefore, claims asserted by the representative
parties are typical of the claims of the class. The proposed class fulfills the typicality
requirement.
Adequacy of representation requires “the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The court has not been made aware
of any potential conflicts of interest between the representative plaintiffs and the class members.

2 

To date, the representative plaintiffs have vigorously prosecuted this action, and there is no
indication they will not continue to do so. The proposed class is represented by law firms that
have significant experience in complex litigation, and class actions in particular. The
representative plaintiffs fulfill the requirement of adequacy.
Plaintiffs seek certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(2). Federal
Defendants do not oppose certification under either rule. The court considers certification under
both rules. A class may be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A) if:
[P]rosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would
create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual
class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the
party opposing the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). A class may be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) if:
The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply
generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Plaintiffs no longer seek money damages in this action. Their
remaining claim is for an accounting. The accounting obligation imposed by § 4011 applies to
“funds held in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an individual Indian
which are deposited or invested pursuant to section 162a of this title.” Under § 4011, the United
States’ obligation to account is limited only to members who can assert claims under 25 U.S.C. §
162a. Classes seeking declaratory relief against the government, such as a proposed accounting,
are appropriately certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), if “any inconsistency in judgments or orders
in lawsuits involving individual members of the class automatically will impose incompatible
standards of behavior on the party opposing the class.” MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 23.41
(3d ed. 2013). Also, classes seeking declaratory relief may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) if
“declaratory relief would be appropriate for an entire class because a party’s action or inaction
3 

affects the entire class.” Id. at § 23.43. Allowing multiple claims to proceed against the
government would risk incompatible orders directing the government to account in contradictory
manners. Also, requested relief would be appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Notably,
the court in Cobell v. Babbitt, 30 F. Supp. 2d 24, 28 (D. D.C. 1998), when confronted with
similar legal issues, certified a class under both 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(2). Thus, for the reasons
stated, this class is also properly certified under Rules 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(2).  

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Certify Class [Dkt. # 1148] is granted.
DATED this 31st day of January, 2014.

4