## Facts

- On March 20, 2003, a large anti-war protest occurred in downtown Chicago, beginning at Federal Plaza and continuing as a march through city streets.
- Plaintiffs alleged Chicago police implemented a coordinated operation that surrounded a large group on a city block using a cordon (“kettle”).
- Plaintiffs alleged police did not give clear dispersal warnings and did not provide a reasonable opportunity to leave before closing the cordon.
- Plaintiffs alleged officers refused to permit exits even when individuals requested to leave or claimed to be bystanders.
- More than 500 people were arrested for disorderly conduct or related offenses; many others were detained and released; some detainees were held for extended periods.
- Some arrestees were released without charges; others faced misdemeanor charges that were later dismissed.
- Plaintiffs brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and First Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment theories) and related state-law claims, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- The April 17, 2006 ruling addressed whether the matter could proceed as a class action, not ultimate liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
2. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements for class treatment.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
- The court certified a class of individuals subjected to the cordon/detention operation on the relevant block during the March 20, 2003 protest.
- The court recognized three subclasses: (1) detained and released without arrest, (2) detained and arrested but not charged, and (3) detained, arrested, and charged with charges later dismissed.
- The court held Rule 23(a) was met: joinder was impracticable given the size; claims shared common questions tied to one coordinated police action; named plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same event and theories; and counsel and representatives were adequate.
- The court held Rule 23(b)(3) was met because common questions about the legality of the overall police strategy, warnings/opportunity to disperse, and basis for arrests predominated over individualized issues, and class treatment was the most efficient method to resolve the dispute.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a) numerosity is satisfied when class size and practical limits make joinder impracticable.
- Rule 23(a) commonality is satisfied when claims arise from a shared core factual event and present common legal questions central to all class members.
- Rule 23(a) typicality is satisfied when named plaintiffs’ claims stem from the same event and alleged policy/practice as the class, despite minor factual variations.
- Rule 23(a) adequacy requires aligned interests between representatives and absent members and competent class counsel without material conflicts.
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), predominance focuses on whether common, central liability questions outweigh individualized questions (including variations relevant mainly to damages).
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), superiority is satisfied when class treatment avoids repetitive litigation, reduces risk of inconsistent outcomes, and enables adjudication of many similar claims that may be uneconomical to pursue individually.

## Conclusion

The court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class (with subclasses) challenging a single, coordinated mass-detention and arrest operation at a political demonstration, concluding that shared questions concerning the lawfulness of the operation predominated and that class adjudication was the fairest and most efficient procedure.


Vodak v. City of Chicago, No. 03 C 2463, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30052 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2006)