## Facts

- State and local governmental bodies, including a township high school district board of education, sued multiple sheet-metal/mechanical contractors for alleged bid rigging and market allocation in public construction projects.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants shared project information, allocated projects, rotated winning bidders, submitted “insincere” high bids, and sometimes refrained from bidding to ensure designated winners obtained contracts at inflated prices.
- Plaintiffs sought to proceed on behalf of a proposed class of public entities in Illinois that allegedly paid overcharges due to the conspiracy.
- Defendants moved to strike the class allegations, arguing Rule 23(a) prerequisites—especially numerosity—were not satisfied.
- The court permitted limited discovery to identify the number of public entities with potential claims.
- Discovery indicated approximately 135 public entities could have claims arising from the alleged conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the case could proceed as a Rule 23 class action on behalf of public entities allegedly injured by the bid-rigging conspiracy.
2. Whether Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity was satisfied given evidence of approximately 135 potential class members and the argument that joinder was feasible.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations.
- The court concluded that, on the record developed after discovery, the proposed class was sufficiently numerous and that joinder of all members was impracticable.
- The court allowed plaintiffs to proceed with the action on a class basis (at least as a putative class), rather than eliminating the class allegations at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a)(1) “impracticability” is a practical inquiry; the theoretical ability to join identified parties does not defeat numerosity.
- A proposed class of roughly 135 members can satisfy numerosity where joinder would be unwieldy in light of the number and dispersion of claimants and the realities of litigation management.
- Governmental entities may serve as adequate class representatives under Rule 23(a)(4) when their interests align with absent public-entity class members and they have sufficient incentive and capacity to litigate.
- Where claims arise from an alleged common bid-rigging conspiracy affecting multiple purchasers, common questions and typical injury allegations generally support Rule 23(a)(2)–(3).

## Conclusion

The court refused to strike class allegations in a public-purchaser antitrust case, holding that evidence of about 135 potential public-entity claimants satisfied Rule 23 numerosity and supported maintaining the case as a putative class action.


Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 214 v. Climatemp, Inc., 91 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Ill. 1981)