Taylor Anders, et al. v. California State University, Fresno, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considers Fresno State’s motion to dismiss a Title IX putative class action as moot and the plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. The court holds that the claims are not moot under the inherently transitory and relation-back principles and addresses the requirements for certifying classes concerning effective accommodation and equal treatment in women’s varsity intercollegiate athletics. The excerpt indicates that the court denies the motion to dismiss and grants the motion for class certification.

Holdings

1. The effective-accommodation claim was not moot because the challenged injury was inherently transitory and capable of repetition yet evading review.
2. The equal-treatment claim was not moot because the named plaintiffs retained an interest in appealing the initial denial of class certification, and the claim was also inherently transitory.
3. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was timely because it complied with the scheduling order and the district's local rules.
4. Both the effective-accommodation class and the equal-treatment class satisfied Rule 23(a)'s numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements.
5. Anders and Walburger were adequate representatives of both proposed classes because no actual conflict existed between their interests and those of the class, and they demonstrated sufficient knowledge and willingness to prosecute the action vigorously.
6. The Clarkson Law Firm and Caddell & Chapman satisfied the adequacy requirements and were appointed as class counsel and co-counsel.
7. Both proposed classes satisfied Rule 23(b)(2) because the alleged Title IX violations constituted conduct generally applicable to the classes and plaintiffs sought classwide injunctive relief.
8. Ascertainability is not an independent prerequisite to certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the named plaintiffs' graduation mooted the putative class action and required dismissal under Article III.
2. Whether the claims related back to the filing of the complaint under the inherently transitory exception to mootness.
3. Whether plaintiffs' motion for class certification was timely.
4. Whether the proposed effective-accommodation and equal-treatment classes satisfied Rule 23(a)'s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements.
5. Whether the proposed classes satisfied Rule 23(b)(2), including whether ascertainability is a prerequisite to certification.
6. Whether the proposed class counsel satisfied Rule 23(a)(4) and Rule 23(g).

Disposition

other