## Facts

- Individuals with developmental disabilities challenged Florida’s administration of a Medicaid Home and Community-Based Waiver program that funds community services as an alternative to institutional care.
- Plaintiffs alleged they experienced delays or denials of waiver services, were effectively forced into institutional settings to obtain needed services, and were denied adequate notice and fair-hearing procedures when services were denied, reduced, or terminated.
- Claims were brought under Title II of the ADA, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Medicaid Act (including the “reasonable promptness” requirement), and the Due Process Clause.
- The district court certified a statewide class broadly defined to include persons receiving, eligible to receive, or potentially eligible in the future to receive waiver services.
- State officials obtained interlocutory review of the class-certification order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), arguing the class was overbroad and the named plaintiffs’ claims were not typical of the entire class.

## Issues

1. When should an appellate court exercise discretion to permit interlocutory review of a class-certification order under Rule 23(f)?
2. Whether certification was improper because the named plaintiffs lacked claim-specific Article III standing and therefore failed Rule 23(a) typicality for the full set of class claims.
3. Whether the certified class was so heterogeneous that a single class was improper and subclasses tied to distinct injuries and legal theories were required.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit exercised Rule 23(f) discretion to hear the appeal.
- The court vacated the class-certification order and remanded.
- The court held the district court failed to conduct a claim-by-claim analysis of standing and typicality and certified an overbroad class spanning materially different eligibility statuses and alleged injuries.
- The court directed that, on remand, each legal claim must be supported by at least one named representative with standing and that the court should consider narrower classes or subclasses aligned with specific claims.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(f) provides discretionary interlocutory review of class-certification orders; review may be appropriate where certification raises important or unsettled issues, appears likely erroneous with major litigation consequences, or creates substantial settlement pressure.
- Article III standing is a threshold requirement that must be established for each claim and each form of relief; a named plaintiff cannot represent class members on claims for which the plaintiff suffered no injury.
- Rule 23(a)(3) typicality is not satisfied where the representatives’ claims do not match the range of injuries and legal theories asserted for the class; lack of standing on a claim defeats typicality for that claim.
- When a proposed class combines distinct groups with different factual postures and harms (e.g., awaiting eligibility determinations, eligible but not served, served but disputing reductions or procedures), Rule 23(c) subclasses may be necessary, each with an appropriate representative.

## Conclusion

The court set aside certification of a single, expansive statewide class because the district court did not ensure claim-specific standing and typicality for the named representatives, and it required a more tailored approach on remand, potentially using subclasses aligned to discrete injuries and legal claims.


Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2000)