Paulette Stoke, Ricquel Hale, Rodney Thomas, Joinell Stokes, Angellica Bozant, Alvin Jones and Carol Jones v. the City of New Orleans, the Honorable Mitch Landrieu, the Honorable Stacy Head, the Honorable Jason Rogers Williams, the Honorable Susan G. Guidry, the Honorable Latoya Cantrell, the Honorable Nadine M. Ramsey, the Honorable Jared C. Brossett

Summary

Judge Lobrano dissents from the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision affirming the denial of class certification in a challenge to New Orleans's Automated Traffic Enforcement System. The dissent argues that the evidence of more than 800,000 citations and over $88 million in payments established numerosity and an objectively definable class, and that individualized reliance and damages issues should not foreclose certification at this stage.

Holdings

1. In the dissent's view, the district court erred as a matter of law by requiring individualized proof that each proposed class member read and relied on specific portions of the Notices of Violation or Affidavits of Non-Liability at the certification stage. Those questions concern the merits of fraud and causation, not the numerosity inquiry.
2. The dissent would hold that the proposed class of persons and entities who received Automated Traffic Enforcement System notices and paid fines, fees, civil penalties, costs, or related amounts was an objectively defined group of aggrieved payors and was sufficiently numerous to make joinder impracticable.
3. The dissent would hold that the legality, design, and administration of the uniform Automated Traffic Enforcement System presented common questions capable of driving the resolution of the litigation, while individualized reliance, causation, prescription, and damages could be reserved for later proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court improperly conflated the numerosity and definable-class requirements for class certification with individualized proof of fraud, reliance, causation, and damages.
2. Whether payment under a standardized municipal enforcement program constitutes an objectively identifiable economic injury sufficient to establish a definable group of aggrieved persons and impracticable joinder.
3. Whether the remaining commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements should be evaluated after numerosity is established.
4. Whether individualized issues of reliance, causation, prescription, and damages may be reserved for later phases of a certified class action.

Disposition

affirmed