1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 J.T., et al., Case No. 23-cv-06524-LJC
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 9 v. CLASS CERTIFICATION
10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Re: Dkt. No. 164 FRANCISCO, et al., 11 Defendants.
12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 This case concerns a mass arrest of more than one hundred people, many of them minors, 15 in the aftermath of the July 2023 “Dolores Hill Bomb,” an unsanctioned skateboarding event. 16 Plaintiffs bring claims under state and federal law based on theories of arrest without probable 17 cause and constitutionally impermissible conditions of confinement. Plaintiffs now move under 18 Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify a class consisting of “all persons who 19 were arrested in the 3500 block of 17th Street, San Francisco, on July 8, 2023, in the mass arrest 20 that occurred at approximately 8:40pm.” ECF No. 164 at 2. Defendants do not oppose class 21 certification for determining liability on Plaintiffs’ false arrest claims, but argue that conditions-of- 22 confinement claims require subclasses of adults, minor girls, and minor boys, 1 and that damages 23 must be determined individually. Defendants also oppose class certification of claims seeking 24 injunctive relief in the form of exoneration. 25 The Court held a hearing on July 15, 2025, and has considered the parties’ arguments, 26 1 When addressing subclasses and describing how Defendants conducted the mass arrest, this 27 Order uses gendered terms like “girls,” “boys,” “male,” and “female” to refer to how detainees 1 evidence, and briefing. Since then, by stipulation, Plaintiffs have filed a Second Amended 2 Complaint adding two additional named Plaintiffs. The Court now GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion 3 for Class Certification in large part, subject to the limitations and modifications discussed below.2 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 The original named Plaintiffs in this case are three minor girls, all of whom were detained 6 during the events at issue. Each submits a declaration in support of class certification. Plaintiffs 7 also provide declarations by S.H., a minor boy who was detained, and Jack Brundage, a young 8 adult who was detained, and have since filed a Second Amended Complaint adding S.H. and 9 Brundage as Plaintiffs. The following summaries of those declarations and a police incident 10 report are not intended as a complete recitation of the declarations or other relevant evidence in the 11 record (which also includes audiovisual recordings, among other exhibits) but provide context for 12 the Court’s analysis below. These summaries should not be construed as resolving any disputed 13 issues of fact. 14 A. J.T.’s Declaration 15 Plaintiff J.T., who was thirteen at the time, went to the vicinity of Dolores Park with 16 friends and a cousin to watch people skateboard. ECF No. 116, ¶ 2–3. J.T. states in a declaration 17 that she and her friends did not engage in graffiti or property damage and did not disobey police 18 orders. Id. ¶ 4. After watching skateboarding on Dolores Street, J.T. heard an announcement by 19 police officers. Id. ¶ 6. She “could not make out the exact words,” but understood it as an 20 instruction to leave the area. Id. She and her group walked through Dolores Park and then north 21 with the intent of finding something to eat, but they learned that J.T.’s friend’s father was on his 22 way to pick them up at the intersection of 17th Street and Valencia Street, so they turned in that 23 direction to meet him. Id. 24 On 17th Street, they found a line of police officers with helmets and shields approaching 25 them. Id. Officers refused J.T.’s request to pass through to meet her friend’s father. Id. ¶ 7. 26 J.T.’s group moved in the direction the police directed them and were eventually surrounded by 27 1 officers approaching from other directions, at which point they were not allowed to leave. Id. 2 ¶¶ 8–9. J.T. never heard any orders to disperse or instructions for how to leave the area after she 3 left Dolores Park earlier in the evening. Id. ¶ 8. 4 According to J.T., the detainees were ordered to sit down on the street and stayed there for 5 at least two hours, including after the sun set and the temperature dropped. Id. ¶ 10. J.T. “was 6 able to get in touch with [her] family,” and her friend’s father came to the area where the group 7 was detained, but officers did not allow them to leave with him. Id. ¶ 11. 8 After a period of hours, officers divided the detainees into minors and adults, and divided 9 the minors by gender. Id. ¶ 12. Officers handcuffed the adults with zip ties and placed them in 10 vans, and told the minors they would have to wait for buses. Id. Officers later searched and zip 11 tied the girls, took their property, and placed them on a Muni bus, which drove one block to the 12 Mission police station. Id. ¶ 13. The girls waited on the bus “for an hour or more.” Id. ¶ 14. 13 J.T.’s father came to the bus, where she was allowed to speak to him, but not to leave with him. 14 Around midnight, J.T. was taken into the police station, fingerprinted, and given her belongings, 15 and she was released around 12:45 AM to her father with a citation “for failure to disperse, 16 inciting a riot and conspiracy.” Id. ¶ 17. Her wrists were red and irritated from the zip ties. 17 J.T. “heard other kids asking to use a bathroom” while detained on the street and on the 18 bus, but they were not allowed to use bathrooms “until near the end of the detention on the bus.” 19 Id. ¶ 15. 20 B. C.L.’s Declaration 21 C.L., who was fifteen years old during the events at issue, walked with friends from her 22 nearby home to watch the skateboarding. ECF No. 177, ¶ 3. According to C.L., she and her 23 friends did not themselves skateboard, engage in any graffiti or property damage, or disobey 24 police orders. Id. ¶ 4. 25 C.L. heard an announcement by police between 7:15 and 7:30 PM. Id. ¶ 5. Like J.T., she 26 could not make out every word that was said, but she understood it as an instruction to leave 27 Dolores Street and enter Dolores Park. Id. ¶ 5. Police then announced that the park was closed as 1 Police had blocked the most direct route to C.L.’s house, so C.L. and her friends walked to 2 Church Street and 18th Street, which appeared to be the available exit. Id. ¶ 6. They “stopp[ed] to 3 watch what was happening,” and then “walked down 18th to Dolores, hoping to be able to circle 4 back to [C.L.’s] home.” Id. But Dolores Street remained closed to the south towards C.L.’s 5 house, so the group paused to try to determine an alternate route, and then unsuccessfully tried to 6 get to Guerrero Street. Id. ¶¶ 6–7. Eventually they went north on Dolores hoping to find another 7 way to Guerrero, but police officers walking behind them directed them onto 17th Street, and then 8 other officers corralled them on 17th between Dolores and Guerrero. Id. ¶¶ 8–9. 9 According to C.L., the group was required to sit on the street for around two hours in cold 10 and windy weather. Id. ¶ 11. Officers did not let her leave with family members who came to get 11 her. Id. ¶ 12. Around 11:00 PM, an officer search C.L., took her property, and zip-tied her hands 12 behind her back in a manner that was tight and painful. Id. ¶ 13. C.L. was then placed on a bus 13 and remained there for more than an hour. Id. ¶ 15. Officers did not allow the girls on the bus to 14 use the bathroom, including a girl who was “crying and begging” to do so. Id. ¶ 15. C.L. was 15 hungry and thirsty, but the police did not provide any food or water. Id. 16 Around midnight, C.L. was allowed to use a bathroom in the police station while an officer 17 watched. Id. ¶ 16. She was fingerprinted and given a citation, and released around 1:15 AM. Id. 18 C. L.R.’s Declaration 19 Plaintiff L.R. was fifteen during the events at issue. ECF No. 180, ¶ 2. She had dinner at a 20 friend’s house in Potrero Hill, and then rented electric scooters with friends to go to another 21 friend’s house near Kezar Stadium. Id. ¶ 3. When they were passing through the Mission District 22 on 17th Street, they saw a large number of young people approaching them from the west, 23 followed by police officers. Id. ¶ 4. L.R. and her friends tried to turn around, but “officers came 24 charging towards [them] from Guerrero, blocking [their] way” and directing them to head west 25 towards the other police officers. Id. ¶ 5. The officers in the other direction then directed them 26 back towards Guerrero, and would not let them leave despite their efforts to explain that they 27 “weren’t involved in whatever was happening.” Id. ¶ 6. At 8:45 PM, unable to leave, L.R. and 1 announced that the crowd was under arrest. Id. 2 L.R. states that she and her friends “never heard any orders to disperse,” “did not 3 participate in bombing [i.e., skateboarding] the hill,” “did not throw anything or engage in any 4 graffiti or property damage,” and “did not at any point disobey any police orders that [they] 5 heard.” Id. ¶ 8. 6 As in the other Plaintiffs’ declarations above, L.R. states that she was held on the street in 7 the cold for more than two hours, without access to bathrooms, food, or water. Id. ¶ 9. When the 8 officers divided the detainees by age and gender, L.R. was separated from her friends, who are 9 boys. Id. ¶ 10. L.R.’s description of subsequent events—being searched around 11:00 PM, 10 handcuffed tightly with zip ties, held on a bus for over an hour without access to a bathroom, and 11 eventually released after midnight with a citation—is substantially similar to J.T.’s and C.L.’s. Id. 12 ¶¶ 11–16. 13 D. S.H.’s Declaration 14 S.H., who was not a named plaintiff at the time he submitted a declaration but is now, was 15 fifteen years old during the events at issue. ECF No. 170, ¶ 2. He brought his skateboard with 16 him to watch the Dolores Hill Bomb but “did not participate in bombing the hill,” and states that 17 he did not engage in other illegal activity like graffiti or disobeying any police orders that he 18 heard. Id. ¶¶ 3–4. 19 S.H. heard an announcement by police “at some point,” but could not understand it 20 “because there was a lot of noise.” Id. ¶ 5. He and his friends decided to leave the area and go to 21 a skatepark. Id. ¶ 6. They walked on 17th Street to Church Street, where they sat on some steps to 22 try to determine the right bus route. Id. When a group of people came running towards them, they 23 “walked away, east on 17th.” Id. 24 Like Plaintiffs’ experience described above, S.H. states that he was surrounded by officers 25 and required to sit on the street in the cold, without access to bathrooms, food, or water. Id. ¶¶ 7– 26 9. S.H. and other boys were kept on the street after officers “loaded the girls onto a Muni bus and 27 people over 18 into other vehicles.” Id. ¶ 10. S.H. “and some of the other boys” were searched, 1 what seemed like an hour.” Id. The boys were later held in “an open air garage-like area.” Id. 2 S.H. was released with a citation around 2:00 AM. Id. ¶ 11. 3 E. Jack Brundage’s Declaration 4 Like S.H., Jack Brundage was not a named plaintiff at the time Plaintiffs filed their 5 Motion, but he has since been added as a plaintiff in the Second Amended Complaint. On the 6 night in question, Brundage (then nineteen years old) was walking with friends at the intersection 7 of 17th Street and Guerrero Street to find a restaurant. ECF No. 178, ¶¶ 2–3. They did not engage 8 in graffiti or property damage. Id. ¶ 5. They “encountered a wall of San Francisco Police Officers 9 with batons out,” who directed them “to walk west on 17th Street to exit the area.” Id. ¶ 4. 10 Brundage and his friends complied with that instruction, which was the only police instruction that 11 Brundage heard that night. Id. ¶¶ 5–6. They then encountered another line of officers who 12 blocked them from proceeding. Id. ¶ 6. Police required Brundage and his friends to sit on the 13 ground with a large group of people on 17th Street, where they received conflicting instructions as 14 to whether they would be released soon with “tickets” or arrested. Id. ¶¶ 7–8. 15 Police separated adults from minors, zip-tied the adults’ hands behind their backs, and 16 loaded them into police wagons. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. Brundage was held in a hot and crowded wagon 17 with seven other people “for somewhere around 1.5 to 2 hours.” Id. ¶¶ 11–12. Officers refused 18 Brundage’s request to open the doors to provide fresh air, denied other detainees’ requests for 19 water, and would not let the detainees use the bathroom. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. Officers also denied 20 Brundage’s request to loosen his zip tie handcuffs, which were causing him pain. Id. ¶ 14. 21 Officers brought Brundage into the Mission police station for around ten minutes to book 22 him, but still did not let him use a bathroom. Id. ¶ 15. They then put him back in the wagon and 23 drove to the county jail, but held the detainees in the wagon for several more hours while waiting 24 for the Sheriff’s Office to open the jail. Id. ¶¶ 16–17. Around 3:30 AM, the detainees were 25 moved to holding cell in the jail, and Brundage was allowed to use the bathroom for the first time. 26 Id. ¶¶ 18–19. Brundage was released around 11:00 AM that morning with a citation. Id. ¶ 20. 27 F. Police Incident Report 1 have provided “an excerpt from the San Francisco Police Department Incident Report” for the 2 events at issue. ECF No. 186-1, ¶ 2.3 The incident report states that officers attempted to prevent 3 the Dolores Hill Bomb from taking place, but participants defied orders; skateboarded recklessly; 4 set off fireworks; removed barricades; took over intersections; threw bottles, fireworks, and other 5 objects at officers; and vandalized Muni vehicles. See generally ECF No. 186-3. Such activities 6 continued despite multiple orders to disperse. Id. One officer was stabbed with an unknown 7 object and treated for a head injury. Id. at 3. 8 Defendants Captain Thomas Harvey and Lieutenant Matt Sullivan “formulated a plan to 9 effect an arrest” of “a large crowd of approximately 200-250 rioters” that had gathered at 18th 10 Street and Dolores Street. Id. at 4. The crowd was ultimately encircled and arrested on 17th 11 Street. Id. at 4. “A mass arrest was done on order and approval by Captain Harvey.” Id. “All 12 detainees were ordered to sit on the ground during the encirclement because, 1) some people in the 13 crowd deployed ignited fireworks, 2) the crowd was unsearched, 3) the crowd has shown 14 destructive and violent behavior and 4) based on the size of the crowd.” Id. “All juveniles were 15 separated from the adults that were involved in the encirclement,” and “[a]ll female juveniles were 16 transported separated from the male suspects to Mission Station.” Id. Adults were booked at the 17 county jail based on Captain Harvey’s approval. Id. Officers recovered a loaded handgun from a 18 bag found on the street after the arrest. Id. 19 G. The Parties’ Claims and Arguments 20 Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 21 violation of section 52.1 of the California Civil Code (the Bane Act), common law false arrest and 22 imprisonment, negligence, and declaratory and injunctive relief (including expungement of 23 records). Corr. 2d Am. Compl. (ECF No. 209) ¶¶ 113–37 (filed after the present Motion); see 24 generally ECF No. 664 (order dismissing in part Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, leaving 25 claims substantially similar to those presented in the Second Amended Complaint operative at the 26 3 Defendants also submit a copy of the San Francisco Police Department General Order governing 27 detention, arrest, and custody of minors. ECF No. 186-2. 1 time the present Motion was filed). Those claims present two general theories of liability: that 2 Defendants wrongfully arrested Plaintiffs without probable cause, and that Defendants held 3 Plaintiffs in impermissible conditions of confinement. 4 Plaintiffs move to certify a class “defined as the 113 people arrested in the 3500 block of 5 17th Street at approximately 8:40pm,” as listed in Defendants’ police report. ECF No. 164 (Mot.) 6 at 20. 7 Defendants “do not oppose certification of the mass arrest claim,” but argue that 8 “conditions of confinement were not uniform” and thus do not warrant class treatment, at least for 9 the class as a whole. ECF No. 186 (Opp’n) at 2–4. Defendants state in their opposition brief that 10 they would “not to oppose certification on conditions of confinement upon the creation of 11 subclasses that satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) based on the following categories of 12 detainees: adults, minor boys, and minor girls.” Id. at 4. Defendants also contends that damages 13 cannot and should not be calculated on a class-wide basis. Id. Defendants do not specifically tie 14 their arguments regarding conditions of confinement and damages to any subpart of Rule 23, but 15 they argue that the conditions-of-confinement claims “cannot be resolved by common evidence,” 16 perhaps suggesting an argument based on Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement. Id. at 3. 17 Finally, Defendants argue that certification of a class seeking injunctive relief of exoneration is 18 inappropriate both because a lack of probable cause to arrest would not necessarily establish actual 19 innocence, and because class members were never charged with a crime after their arrest. Id. at 20 4–5. 21 In their reply brief, Plaintiffs argued that conditions of confinement could be resolved for 22 the class as a whole, because all class members were detained for hours in cold weather and 23 without access to food, water, or bathrooms. ECF No. 188 at 2–4. But Plaintiffs did “not 24 necessarily object to subclassing,” id. at 2. At the hearing, Plaintiffs agreed to modify the class 25 definition for the purpose of injunctive relief to exclude the apparently small number of people 26 who had individualized charges filed against them separately from and after the mass arrest. ECF 27 No. 195 at 14:8–11, 19:16–20. 1 declaratory relief. ECF No. 195 at 19:11–15. 2 III. LEGAL STANDARD 3 Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party seeking class 4 certification to show that: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 5 impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or 6 defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the 7 representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 23(a).5 9 The class must also satisfy at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). As is relevant 10 here, Rule 23(b) may be satisfied where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act 11 on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding 12 declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), or where 13 “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any 14 questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available 15 methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
16 Although . . . a court’s class-certification analysis must be rigorous and may entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s 17 underlying claim, Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in free- ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits questions 18 may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class 19 certification are satisfied. 20 Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 465–66 (2013) (citations and internal 21 quotation marks omitted). 22 “When appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect 23 to particular issues,” Fed R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4), or “may be divided into subclasses that are each 24 treated as a class under” Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(5). A court may later amend a class 25
26 5 Some courts have also imposed an implied fifth requirement of “ascertainability,” which might or might not be consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. See True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. 27 McKesson Corp., 896 F.3d 923, 929 (9th Cir. 2018). The Court need not address that issue in this 1 certification order before final judgment is entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(C). 2 IV. ANALYSIS 3 A. Rule 23(a) Requirements 4 1. Numerosity 5 “Although the [numerosity] requirement is not tied to any fixed numerical threshold, courts 6 have routinely found [it] satisfied when the class comprises 40 or more members.” See Kazi v. 7 PNC Bank, N.A., No. 18-cv-04810-JCS, 2020 WL 607065, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020) (citing 8 EEOC v. Kovacevich “5” Farms, No. CV-F-06-165 OWW/TAG, 2007 WL 1174444, at *21 (E.D. 9 Cal. Apr. 19, 2007)); see also Rannis v. Recchia, 380 F. App’x 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 10 Kovacevich with approval for the principle that classes of at least forty are generally sufficient, 11 and affirming certification of a class of twenty members). No party disputes numerosity in this 12 case, and the more than one hundred putative class members exceed that informal threshold. The 13 Court finds this factor to be satisfied. 14 2. Commonality 15 To satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement, “even a single common question will 16 do.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 359 (2011) (cleaned up). But not any question 17 necessarily will suffice. “Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class 18 members have suffered the same injury . . . . Their claims must depend upon a common contention 19 . . . of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of 20 its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in 21 one stroke.” Id. at 349–50 (cleaned up). 22 This case meets that test, because the question of whether Defendants—and particularly 23 Captain Harvey, who ordered the arrest—had probable cause to effect a mass arrest of all putative 24 class members is central to all of their claims. Defendants do not contest commonality for the 25 purpose of Plaintiffs’ claims based on a theory of false arrest. At the hearing, defense counsel 26 conceded that those claims rise or fall together:
27 THE COURT: So are you conceding that . . . the Plaintiffs’ claim, as 1 . . . .
2 MS. SCHROEDER: That is correct. 3 ECF No. 195 at 4:2–9. In defense counsel’s words, “this was an arrest that was a mass arrest, 4 conducted pursuant to a single decision by Captain Tom Harvey.” Id. at 20:10–12. The Court 5 therefore finds that commonality is satisfied with respect to Plaintiffs’ false arrest claims. 6 It is not entirely clear whether Defendants challenged commonality with respect to 7 Plaintiffs’ conditions-of-confinement claims. Their argument that such claims “cannot be resolved 8 by common evidence,” ECF No. 186 at 3, does not address the standard of whether class members 9 suffered the same injury and whether at least one significant common question can be resolved on 10 a class-wide basis. See Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349–50, 359. There is at least some common 11 question, and common injury, with respect to the reasonableness of the initial period when all 12 detainees were held together on the street for around two hours. See, e.g., ECF No. 180, ¶¶ 9–10. 13 The Court need not resolve whether that is sufficient to establish commonality as to the 14 class as a whole, however, because at least the typicality factor (as discussed below) requires 15 dividing the class into three subclasses: adults, minor girls, and minor boys.6 Plaintiffs have made 16 clear both in their briefing, ECF No. 188 at 2, at the hearing, and through their Second Amended 17 Complaint that though they did not believe such subclasses were necessary, they are amenable to 18 proceeding in that manner. At least based on the current record, it appears that each subclass was 19 treated in a substantially uniform manner7 such that they suffered common injuries, and such that 20 their claims present common questions of the reasonableness of their detention that are amenable 21 to class-wide resolution. The Court therefore concludes that the commonality requirement is 22 satisfied for Plaintiffs’ conditions-of-confinement claims to proceed based on subclasses. 23 3. Typicality 24 The typicality requirement looks to “whether other members have the same or similar 25
26 6 All references herein to minors refer to class members who were under the age of eighteen at the time of their detention. 27 7 Minor boys were transported to the police station in different groups, but at least based on the 1 injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and 2 whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Hanon v. 3 Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); see also Dukes, 564 4 U.S. at 348–49 (noting that “a class representative must be part of the class and possess the same 5 interest and suffer the same injury as the class members” (citation omitted)). “The purpose of the 6 typicality requirement is to assure that the interest of the named representative aligns with the 7 interests of the class.” Hanon, 976 F.2d at 508. “The commonality and typicality requirements of 8 Rule 23(a) tend to merge” with each other and with the adequacy requirement because all “serve 9 as guideposts for determining whether under the particular circumstances . . . the named plaintiff’s 10 claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members will be fairly 11 and adequately protected in their absence.” Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 158 n.13 12 (1982); see also Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350 n.5. 13 There is no dispute in this case that each named plaintiff is typical of the class for the 14 purpose of determining liability on Plaintiffs’ theories that Defendants lacked sufficient cause for 15 the mass arrest. When it comes to the conditions of their confinement, however, Defendants 16 divided the detainees into groups of adults, minor girls, and minor boys, and treated those groups 17 somewhat differently. Defendants’ incident report and Plaintiffs’ declarations are consistent with 18 respect to Defendants’ separation of the detainees by age and gender. See, e.g., ECF No. 186-3 at 19 4 (“All juveniles were separated from the adults that were involved in the encirclement. . . . All 20 female juveniles were transported separately from the male suspects to Mission Station.”). 21 Defendants loaded the girls on a bus shortly after that division, held them on the bus, took their 22 fingerprints and issued them citations at the police station, and then released them. ECF No. 166, 23 ¶¶ 12–16; ECF No. 177, ¶¶ 14–16; ECF No. 180, ¶¶ 12–14. Defendants transported the boys to an 24 “open air garage-like area” at the police station before fingerprinting, citing, and releasing them. 25 ECF No. 170, ¶¶ 10–11. Defendants transported adults to the police station in other vehicles, 26 booked them, and then held them at the county jail overnight before releasing them, with long 27 periods of detention in vehicles over the course of that process. ECF No. 178, ¶¶ 7–20; see also 1 As Plaintiffs argue in their reply, there are some common threads to all of their 2 experiences: “All were detained outdoors and then in vehicles for hours, all were confused, scared, 3 anxious, cold, thirsty, had to urinate, the plastic handcuffs were painful, and they are all worried 4 about how the arrest record may impact their futures.” ECF No. 188 at 5. But a finder of fact 5 could reasonably perceive relevant distinctions between the length of time and the locations of 6 each of the three groups’ detention. As Defendants note, for example, courts have sometimes 7 rejected conditions-of-confinement claims based on relatively short deprivations of amenities. 8 ECF No. 186 at 3 (citing, e.g., Reviere v. Phillips, No. 1:11-cv-00483-AWI, 2014 WL 711002, at 9 *9 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014)). The Court or jury also might reasonably discern meaningful 10 differences in whether the same treatment or similar treatment was constitutionally reasonable as 11 applied to minors as compared to adults. See, e.g., ECF No. 186-2 (Defendants’ policies for 12 detention of minors,8 recognizing that special considerations are appropriate). 13 As noted above, Plaintiffs are at least amenable to proceeding based on subclasses. To the 14 extent that Plaintiffs still pursue adjudication of their conditions-of-confinement claims as a single 15 class, the Court holds that each named plaintiff’s experience is not sufficiently typical of those of 16 other groups (adults, minor girls, and minor boys) to proceed without subclasses. Divided in that 17 manner, however, the Court holds that each named plaintiff is sufficiently typical of others in their 18 respective group to proceed with those subclasses. 19 Defendants have suggested that the original Plaintiffs’ disclosure of their identities—both 20 through filing their since-sealed original Complaint with their full names in violation of Rule 21 5.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and through other purported public disclosures not 22 documented in the record—renders them atypical of other class members who wish to avoid 23 disclosure of their detention, at least for the purpose of seeking injunctive relief to expunge 24 records of such detention. See ECF No. 195 at 11:15–12:9. Now that Plaintiffs have amended 25 their Complaint to add S.H. as a named plaintiff and class representative, the Court need not 26 resolve that issue. There is no indication that S.H. has disclosed his identity, so S.H. at least is 27 1 typical of class members who wish to avoid such disclosure, while the original named plaintiffs 2 are similarly situated to any other class members who may have already disclosed their detention. 3 The Court does not resolve whether such disclosure would have served as a barrier to class 4 certification in the absence of S.H. as a class representative. 5 4. Adequacy 6 “Rule 23(a)(4), which requires that the class representatives ‘fairly and adequately protect 7 the interests of the class,’ is satisfied if the proposed representative plaintiffs do not have conflicts 8 of interest with the proposed class and are represented by qualified and competent counsel.” 9 Kamakahi v. Am. Soc’y for Reprod. Med., 305 F.R.D. 164, 184 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Ellis v. 10 Costco Wholesale Corp., 285 F.R.D. 492, 535 (N.D. Cal. 2012)). 11 As previously noted, this inquiry merges to some degree with the typicality requirement 12 discussed above. See Falcon, 457 U.S. at 158 n.13. The reasons identified in connection with the 13 typicality analysis, namely the interrelatedness of class members’ claims and the named plaintiffs’ 14 claims, also support a determination that the named plaintiffs will provide adequate representation 15 to the absent class members. The Court finds no other significant deficiency or conflict of interest 16 with respect to Plaintiffs or their counsel. The Court therefore finds the adequacy element of Rule 17 23(a) satisfied. 18 B. Rule 23(b) Requirements 19 In addition to satisfying all four elements of Rule 23(a), a class must meet at least one of 20 the requirements of Rule 23(b). Here, Plaintiffs invoke Rule 23(b)(2), for injunctive and 21 declaratory relief to remedy Defendants’ “act[ion] or refus[al] to act on grounds that apply 22 generally to the class,” and Rule 23(b)(3), because common questions predominate such that a 23 class action is superior to individual adjudication of claims. ECF No. 164 at 26–33. 24 1. Rule 23(b)(2) 25 Rule 23(b)(2) allows for certification where “the party opposing the class has acted or 26 refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or 27 corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 23(b)(2). 2 Defendants do not oppose certification under Rule 23(b)(2) to the extent Plaintiffs seek 3 declaratory relief that Defendants’ conduct violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional and legal rights. See 4 ECF No. 195 at 19:11–15. 5 With respect to injunctive relief, Plaintiffs proposed at the hearing that the class should 6 exclude individuals who were charged with crimes in connection with the Dolores Hill Bomb 7 later, subsequent to the mass arrest and detention. ECF No. 195 at 19:16–20. Defendants argue 8 that class certification should be denied as to Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief for an order of 9 exoneration, for two reasons: (1) “the Court would have to individually determine each detainee’s 10 factual innocence with respect to the charges for which they were arrested”; (2) “the independent 11 flaw that exoneration is inapplicable because none of the detainees was ever charged with any 12 crimes arising from the mass arrest itself.” ECF No. 186 at 4–5. In their reply brief and at the 13 hearing, Plaintiffs backed off somewhat from seeking “exoneration” per se, as opposed to 14 expungement of arrest records. But in any event, Defendants’ second argument somewhat 15 undermines the former: it is at least possible for this request for injunctive relief to be resolved on 16 a class-wide basis if Defendants prevail in showing that exoneration is per se improper for 17 plaintiffs who were never charged with a crime. And if Plaintiffs prevail in showing that the mass 18 arrest lacked probable cause, it might be appropriate for the Court to order some sort of class-wide 19 injunctive relief to remedy that wrong, such as expungement of the arrest record, even if an order 20 of “exoneration” might not be appropriate. At this stage of the case, the Court need not resolve 21 what form of relief, if any, might be appropriate for such a violation. See Amgen, 568 U.S. 455 at 22 466 (cautioning against “free-ranging merits inquiries at the [class] certification stage”). 23 Turning back to the standard of Rule 23(b)(2), Defendants have “refused to act on grounds 24 that apply generally to the class,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), by declining to expunge the arrest 25 records or issue any sort of exoneration. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to such relief is a merits 26 question that need not be resolved at class certification. 27 2. Rule 23(b)(3) 1 resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims on a class– and subclass-wide basis is superior to individual 2 adjudication and that common issues predominate. The Court agrees. As discussed above, 3 Plaintiffs’ false arrest theories rise and fall together based on whether Defendants had sufficient 4 cause for Captain Harvey’s decision to order the mass arrest. Plaintiffs’ conditions-of- 5 confinement theories turn on conditions that, within each of the three subclasses, were 6 substantially similar, at least as reflected by the current record. Defendants’ only remaining 7 objection, which appears to be a matter of predominance and superiority though not specifically 8 framed as such, relates to damages. 9 Precedent regarding when issues of damages can preclude class certification is complex. 10 See Kazi, 2020 WL 607065, at *5, *7. “[T]o satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement, 11 damages must be ‘capable of measurement on a classwide basis.’” Doyle v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 12 663 F. App’x 576, 579 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting to Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 35 13 (2013)).9 But at least in the Ninth Circuit, “the need for individualized findings as to the amount 14 of damages does not defeat class certification.” Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 824 15 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th 16 Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 576 U.S. 1028 (2015). One decision from this district has synthesized 17 those holdings as essentially requiring that a plaintiff need not “present a specific model that 18 calculates all class members’ damages” at the class certification stage, but must show at least show 19 “a common source of evidence” from which damages can be determined, even if the amount of 20 damages will vary among class members. Kazi, 2020 WL 607065, at *7. 21 In this case, there is a common source of evidence in Defendants’ records to show that all 22 class members were detained at the same time, that class members were divided and subjected to 23 distinct conditions of confinement based on age (adults) and gender (minor boys and minor girls), 24 and when each class member was released. According to Plaintiffs, such evidence—in 25 conjunction with testimony and other evidence regarding the nature of each subclass’s 26 confinement—could be used to assess damages for any violation that might be found of Plaintiffs’ 27 1 rights under the Fourth Amendment and related authority. See ECF No. 195 at 33:3–34:6. 2 At the hearing, Defendants appeared to drop their objection after Plaintiffs clarified that the 3 only relevant distinctions for damages would be the three subclasses and the length of time that 4 each class member was detained. After a discussion of Plaintiffs’ view that those would be the 5 relevant considerations for damages, the Court asked if Defendants disagreed. ECF No. 195 at 6 34:12–25. Defense counsel responded, “No. We just weren’t -- it wasn’t entirely clear to us that 7 the length, the duration, was the only multiplier for each.” Id. at 35:1–3. 8 As Plaintiffs note in their reply brief, ECF No. 188 at 5–6, some courts have allowed class- 9 wide determination of damages based on the length of detention, presenting juries with options to 10 assess different values of damages for different lengths of detention. The D.C. Circuit noted the 11 use of such a process in a footnote of Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 174 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In 12 Barnes v. District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia adopted that 13 “Dellums method” for determining “general damages”—as relevant there, “the injury to human 14 dignity that is presumed when a person is strip searched or overdetained.” 278 F.R.D. 14, 20 15 (D.D.C. 2011). The Barnes court declined to use that sort of aggregate method to assess “special” 16 damages “such as damages for emotional distress, lost wages, or other types of compensatory 17 damages other than general damages as defined above,” which “must proceed on an individual 18 basis.” Id. at 22. 19 Plaintiffs do not seek special damages here.10 See ECF No. 164 at 30 (“The plaintiffs and 20 class members are not seeking special damages for out-of-pocket losses.”). Based on the current 21 record, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that—if they prevail on any claim—general damages could 22 feasibly and fairly be assessed based on the length of detention and the subclass in which a given 23 class member falls. The Court reserves the authority to revisit that determination if evidence later 24
25 10 This action is therefore limited to general damages, and the Court is not inclined to allow for subsequent adjudication of individual special damages that Plaintiffs have not sought in any 26 iteration of their Complaint. The class notice should make clear that if a given class member wishes to pursue damages for lost wages; physical injury; individualized emotional distress 27 beyond the inherent injury to their dignity and ordinary pain, suffering, anxiety, and distress 1 shows that class members’ treatment or experiences varied meaningfully beyond those parameters. 2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(5) (granting a court authority to modify a class certification order). At 3 this time, however, the Court does not find damages to be an impediment to class certification, and 4 concludes that Rules 23(b)(3)’s requirements of predominance and superiority are satisfied. 5 V. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby certifies a class of plaintiffs under Rules 7 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as all persons who were 8 arrested in the 3500 block of 17th Street, San Francisco, on July 8, 2023, in the mass arrest that 9 occurred at approximately 8:40 PM. Whether Defendants had sufficient cause to conduct the mass 10 arrest will be addressed for the class as a whole. For the limited purposes of considering claims 11 based on conditions of confinement and assessing damages, the Court certifies the following 12 subclasses: (1) individuals categorized by Defendants as girls under the age of eighteen at the time 13 of their detention; (2) individuals categorized by Defendants as boys under the age of eighteen at 14 the time of their detention; and (3) individuals categorized by Defendants as adults of the age 15 eighteen or older at the time of their detention.11 16 For the limited purpose of considering injunctive relief, the class excludes any person who 17 was charged with a crime connected to the events of the Dolores Hill Bomb after their release 18 from the mass detention at issue. If Plaintiffs prevail on the merits of any claim, any such person 19 may pursue injunctive relief individually following the conclusion of this class action. 20 The Court appoints Plaintiffs J.T., C.L., L.R., S.H., and Jack Brundage as class 21 representatives. The Court appoints Plaintiffs J.T., C.L., and L.R. as representatives of the 22 subclass of minor girls; S.H. as representative of the subclass of minor boys; and Jack Brundage as 23 representative of the subclass of adults. The Court appoints the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, 24 11 The relevant distinction for the purpose of this case is how Defendants treated detainees after 25 dividing them into gender-based groups, even if a given detainee’s gender identity might differ from such categorization. Though there is no allegation or evidence in the present record of any 26 detainee having been categorized incorrectly, the Court addresses that possibility in an abundance of caution, and to make clear how this Order and subsequent proceedings based on subclasses will 27 apply in the event that some class members’ gender identities differ from how they were 1 the Community Law Office, and Bobbie Stein as counsel for the class and all subclasses. 2 Defendants are ORDERED to produce the unredacted police incident report showing all 3 || putative class members’ names no later than one week from the date of this Order if they have not 4 || done so already. 5 The parties shall meet and confer and, if possible, file no later than two weeks from this 6 Order a joint motion to approve class notice, attaching the proposed form of notice and addressing 7 (among any other relevant issues) how the notice accounts for any special considerations relevant 8 to class members who are still minors. If the parties are unable to agree to a form of notice, they 9 || may file separate motions addressing their competing proposals by the same deadline. A party’s 10 || motion to approve a proposed notice consistent with this Order shall not be construed as waiving 11 any objection to the merits of this Order. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: October 30, 2025 El: A, | pariry— A.J. CISEROS = 16 ited States Magistrate Judge = 17
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28