United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
filing the motion, Plaintiff obtained counsel. (ECF No. 169).
Thus, the Court should conclude that Plaintiff's request
for counsel is now moot.
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).
23(a) sets forth four threshold requirements:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
(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.
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.
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.
The Court should agree with Defendants and conclude that the
elements of “commonality” and
“typicality” are absent in the instant case. The