Rappaport v. Katz

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Family Law

Family LawCivil ProcedureClass ActionsRule 23class certificationRule 23(b)(2)definable classascertainability

Facts

Four plaintiffs, comprising two couples, challenged rules imposed by the Clerk of the City of New York for civil weddings at City Hall, specifically rules concerning attire and the exchange of rings. One couple had already been married there, and the other planned to marry there within the coming year. Plaintiffs sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief, claiming the rules violated constitutional rights. They sought to represent a class of all persons who wish and are legally entitled to be married by the clerk or his agents.

Issue

Whether a class consisting of all persons who wish and are legally entitled to be married by the New York City Clerk or his agents is sufficiently definite and appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Also, whether class treatment is necessary where any declaratory relief would likely have city-wide effect.

Rule

Before an action may proceed under Rule 23, there must be an actual class whose general outlines of membership are determinable at the outset and sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible to determine whether a particular individual is a member. A class may not be defined so broadly that it includes persons with little connection to the claim, nor may it depend on subjective states of mind; if no definable class is present, class allegations may be denied and the action may proceed individually.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Philadelphia, Nora Levin sues the county marriage bureau, alleging its ceremony script unlawfully restricts personal vows. She seeks to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class of all persons who may seek a civil marriage ceremony from the bureau at any time in the future.

Should the court most likely certify the proposed class?

Explanation. The majority opinion requires that an actual class exist before certification and that the general outlines of membership be determinable at the outset. A class made up of all persons who may seek services in the future is too amorphous, imprecise, and subject to change from day to day, making administrative identification of members infeasible. The fact that the defendant acts on generally applicable grounds does not eliminate the need for a definable class. (Derived from Rappaport v. Katz (n.d.).)