Hill v. City of New York

Hill v. City of New York

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of minority New York City Police Department ("NYPD") 911 Operators, bring this action against the Defendants New York City; Mayor Bloomberg as Mayor of New York City and Raymond Kelly as NYPD Commissioner, both in their official capacities¹ ; and Richard F. Napolitano, Charles F. Dowd, Michael V. Polito, Ljubomir Belusic, Donald Church, and David Lichtenstein, all in their official and individual capacities (collectively, "City Defendants"), as well as Defendant Local 1549, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO ("Defendant Union") (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging, inter alia, violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP" or "Rule") 23(b)(2) on September 28, 2015. (Memorandum & Order ("M&O"), [*3]  Dkt. 115.) Plaintiffs now seek an amendment to the Court's class certification order in order to effectuate the settlement the parties have reached. (Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement ("Pls.' Settlement Br."), Dkt. 193, at 4-5; Letter Motion to Certify Class ("Letter Motion"), Dkt. 199, at ECF² 2.) For the following reasons, the Court amends its original class certification to include both a Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) class as defined infra.

BACKGROUND³

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under FRCP 23(b)(2) on September 28, 2015. (Dkt. 115.) Since this class certification, the parties have engaged in discovery and extensive settlement negotiations. (See, e.g., Dkts. 128, 130, 134, 144, 158; 4/23/2018 Minute Entry; 5/31/2018 Minute Entry; 7/13/2018 Minute Entry; 9/18/2018 Minute Entry; 10/09/2018 Minute Entry; 12/07/2018 Minute Entry.) On December 21, 2018, the parties indicated that they had reached a settlement. (Dkt. 190.) Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of their class action settlement (Dkts. 191, 199) and Defendants filed a motion seeking approval of the notice of proposed settlement and fairness hearing (Dkt. [*4]  194), as required by Rule 23(e). As part of their motion, Plaintiffs⁴ seek to amend the Court's previous class certification of two Rule 23(b)(2) classes to combine them into a single § 1981 Rule 23(b)(2) class. (Letter Motion, Dkt. 199, at ECF 2.)

LEGAL STANDARD

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.