## Facts

- Named plaintiffs, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, alleged that NYPD officers conducted widespread stops and frisks without constitutionally required individualized suspicion and disproportionately targeted Black and Latino New Yorkers.
- The action was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of New York as the municipal policymaker for the NYPD.
- Plaintiffs challenged what they characterized as centralized NYPD practices concerning stop-and-frisk, including training, supervision, documentation, and discipline, that allegedly produced recurring unlawful stops and racially discriminatory policing.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on the theory that the legality of the challenged practices turned on common proof and that uniform injunctive relief could address the alleged constitutional violations.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(a) requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy) for a class challenging stop-and-frisk practices.
2. Whether Rule 23(b)(2) certification was appropriate because the City allegedly acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, making classwide declaratory or injunctive relief suitable.
3. Whether the asserted claims concerning NYPD stop-and-frisk practices presented common legal and factual questions tied to centralized policies or practices attributable to the City.

## Decision

- The court certified a class under Rule 23(b)(2) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The court concluded that Rule 23’s prerequisites were met, emphasizing that the challenged stop-and-frisk practices were sufficiently centralized to generate common questions capable of classwide resolution.
- The court determined that injunctive and declaratory relief, if warranted, would apply generally to the class because the alleged conduct was directed by or traceable to Citywide practices rather than individualized circumstances alone.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a) commonality may be satisfied where a challenge to policing practices turns on common questions regarding centralized policies, training, supervision, or oversight that allegedly drive recurring constitutional violations.
- Rule 23(b)(2) certification is suited to cases seeking forward-looking relief against a defendant alleged to have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, such that a single injunction or declaration would provide relief to each class member.
- In civil-rights class actions against a municipality, class certification may be appropriate where plaintiffs’ theory of liability focuses on uniform practices attributable to municipal decision-making and capable of proof through common evidence.

## Conclusion

The court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive-relief class challenging NYPD stop-and-frisk practices, finding that the alleged Citywide, centrally administered practices created common legal and factual questions suitable for classwide adjudication and uniform prospective relief.


Floyd v. City of New York, 283 F.R.D. 153 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)