## Facts

- Three consolidated § 1983 actions challenged police conduct during a September 12, 1985 raid at Carol’s Speakeasy, a Chicago bar primarily frequented by homosexual and bisexual men.
- Approximately 50 patrons were present when NEMEG agents entered; Chicago police officers later entered and guarded the doors.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants lacked arrest or search warrants for any patron and lacked probable cause or other legal justification.
- The proposed class included all persons allegedly subjected during the raid to unlawful seizures and detentions, searches, excessive force, interrogations, and photographing.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, and moved to certify a plaintiff class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
2. Whether certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(2) where plaintiffs primarily sought declaratory and injunctive relief but also sought damages.

## Decision

- The court granted class certification.
- Numerosity was satisfied because joinder of roughly 50 patrons was impracticable, including due to potential stigma and social prejudice associated with being identified as a patron of a gay bar.
- Commonality was satisfied because the claims arose from a single raid and presented shared factual and legal questions about the constitutionality of defendants’ conduct.
- Typicality was satisfied because the named plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same event and rested on the same legal theories as absent class members; potential individualized defenses did not defeat typicality.
- Adequacy was satisfied because the named plaintiffs had no conflict with the class and were represented by competent counsel.
- Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was appropriate because defendants’ alleged conduct was generally applicable to the class and the primary relief sought was declaratory and injunctive; the presence of damages claims did not bar (b)(2) treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a) numerosity may be met not only by the number of class members but also by practical barriers to joinder, including stigma or fear of public identification.
- Commonality exists when class members’ claims arise from a shared course of conduct and present common questions regarding the legality of that conduct.
- Typicality is satisfied when representatives’ claims arise from the same event and legal theories as the class, even if some individual defenses may exist.
- Rule 23(b)(2) certification is proper where defendants allegedly acted on grounds generally applicable to the class and declaratory or injunctive relief is the primary focus, notwithstanding additional claims for damages.

## Conclusion

The court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) civil-rights class challenging an allegedly warrantless raid, finding that shared questions about a single incident and practical obstacles to individual suits, including potential stigma, supported class treatment and that declaratory and injunctive relief predominated over individualized damages issues.


Patrykus v. Gomilla, 121 F.R.D. 357 (N.D. Ill. 1988)