Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc.

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable [“numerosity”]; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class [“commonality”]; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [“typicality”]; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [“adequacy”]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

CoreCivic was contracted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to incarcerate detained immigrants. Plaintiffs represented a class of immigrants detained by CoreCivic who alleged they were forced to perform labor beyond personal housekeeping duties mandated by ICE without adequate compensation. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs established a California Labor Law Class, a California Forced Labor Class, and a National Forced Labor Class. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable [“numerosity”]; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class [“commonality”]; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [“typicality”]; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [“adequacy”]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). Plaintiffs were all forced to complete tasks without adequate pay that were beyond the scope of ICE’s “standard policies,” thus establishing the commonality requirement with respect to all three classes. The common question of whether CoreCivic violated the law and rights of class members was appropriate for class-wide resolution. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the three classes. Affirmed.