Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Greer v. Fallin

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

February 15, 2018

TRAVIS GREER, Plaintiff,
v.
MARY FALLIN, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SHON T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Mr. Greer has filed a “Motion Requesting Certification as a Class Action and Appointment of Class Counsel.” (ECF No. 162). The Court should DENY the motion.

         I. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

         After filing the motion, Plaintiff obtained counsel. (ECF No. 169). Thus, the Court should conclude that Plaintiff's request for counsel is now moot.

         II. CLASS CERTIFICATION

         Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the class certification requirements. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 345 (2011). Plaintiffs seeking class certification must show that the underlying case: (1) satisfies each of Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites, and (2) falls under at least one of Rule 23(b)'s categories of class actions. See Menocal v. The GEO Group, Inc., No. 17-1125 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018) slip op. at 10).

         Rule 23(a) sets forth four threshold requirements:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

         Plaintiff, as the party seeking class certification, "must show under a strict burden of proof that all four requirements are clearly met." Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 1162 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted). If those requirements are met, the court must also examine whether the action falls within one of the three categories of suits set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b). Menocal, slip op. at 10.

         In response to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants have challenged Plaintiff's ability to meet the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23(a)(2)-(3). (ECF No.

         170). The Court should agree with Defendants and conclude that the elements of “commonality” and “typicality” are absent in the instant case. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.