19bk06255, 19ap00684
Upon a motion to certify a putative class of claimants asserting claims for unlawful deprivation of motor vehicles by the City of Chicago from debtors in chapter 13 bankruptcy cases and a related motion to exclude from that consideration the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, held:
As to the motion to exclude, the plaintiffs’ expert and his testimony meet the required standards under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 and the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Daubert. The expert and his testimony have the requisite qualifications and experience, reliability and relevance. The expert’s proposed use is as to his specialized knowledge and experience and will assist the court as the trier of fact.
As to the motion for certification, the plaintiffs have demonstrated that they meet the requirements for representative parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), in that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The court further finds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) that prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class or adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. The court further finds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
As a result, the motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert and his testimony will be DENIED and the motion to certify the class will be GRANTED, each as set forth herein, subject to a further order of the court setting forth the specific requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c).
