Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 08-08-2006 ‎(executive)‎ — reading text

HufE, 485 the question of plaintiff can on F. 2d at 714. In order to perform the rigorous analysis Rule 23 requires, it is often necessary for courts to look beyond the pleadings. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U. S. 147, 160 ( 1982) ; Pettco Bnte.rprlses, Inc. v. White, 162 F. R. D. 151, 156 ( M. D. Ala. 1995), aff' d, 98 F. 3d 1353 ( 11th Cir. 1996). The Court will, accordingly, consider the evidentiary materials with to the narrow issue of submitted by the parties, but only respect very have satisfied the requirements of Rule 1. 220. See whether the plaintiffs 827 F. 2d at 722- 23; Love v. Turlington, 733 F. 2d 1562, 1564 ( 11th Kirkpatrick, Cir. 1984); and In re Commercial Tissue Products, 83 F. R. D. 589, 592 ( N. D. Fla. 1998) ( Maurice Paul, District Judge) . II . CLASS CER.TIFICATION to both classes) generally applicable Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the following two classes: A. Proposed plaintiff class: after the date that is four All persons who, on or in years before the filing of the initial complaint this action, were duly admitted to practice law in the state of Florida by the Florida Supreme Court, and who maintain or maintained a permanent business location or branch office for the practice of law at a location subj ect to the jurisdiction of either the City of Tampa or of any other municipality that is a member of the class described below, or who practice defendant or law in any practiced Florida county that is a member of the defendant class described below, and who either paid or have had paid on his or her behalf, an occupational license tax. or fee authorized by Chapter 205, Florida Statutes. Case:No. 03- 5425 Page 2 of 16Pqes  B. Proposed defendant class: All incorporatedmunic:ipalities and all counties in the State Florida that, on or after the date that of is four years before the filing of the initial complaint in this action, have enacted and enforced or now enforce an ordinance under which they imposed or impose a municipal or county occupational license tax or fee authorized by Chapter 205, Florida Statues, on any attorney who maintains or mainta.ined a permanent business location or branch office for the practice of law at a location subject to the municipality' s jurisdiction ( as to municipalities) or engages or engaged in the practice of law at a location subject to the county' s jurisdiction ( as to counties). At the class certification stage the burden properly is on the party certify class ( in the instant action, both classes). Rutstein v. seeking to a Rent- A- Car Incq 211 F. 3d 1228, 1233 ( 11th Cir. 2000); Perry v. Avis System, Household Retail Services, Inc., 180 F. R. D. 423, 430 ( M. D. Ala. 1998). It is axiomatic as well as long established law that an action may be maintained as a class action only if all four prerequisites of Rule 1. 220, Fla. R. Civ. P., are satisfied and, in addition, one of the three subsections of Rule 1. 220( b} is met. Rutstein, 211 F. 3d at 1233- 24; Jackson v. Motel 6 MultipLlrposel' Inc., 130 F. 3d 999, 1005 ( 11th Cir. 1997); Heaven v. Trust Co. Bank, 118 F. 3d 735, 737 11th Cir. 1997). The Florida rule provides that a class may be certified if the following requirements are met: of all members is l) Numerosity: the class is so numerous that joinder impractical; of law fact common to the class 2) Commonality: questions or are emphasis added); 3) the representatives of the class present claims 2E. Typicality: defenses ( emphasis added) that are typical of the classi and 4) the representatives oftha class will fairly and Adequacy: the interests of the class. adequately protect Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F. 3d 1276, 1279 ( 11th Cir. 2000), citing the class action rule. In addition to the basic four crt ter ia of Rule 1. 220 ( a), an action is Case No. 03- 5425 Page 3 of 16 Pages maintainable as a class act ion if ei ther of the following is determined to exist: the party opposing the dlass has acted on grounds generally to the class, thereby making final injunctive relief or declaratory applicable relief with respect to the class as a whole appropriate [ Rule 1. 220( b) ( 2)]: or fact to emphasis added) the court finds that the questions of law or common claim defense of the claim or defense of the class representative and the or question of law or fact each member of the class predominate over any members of the class, and that a class action is affecting only individual for the fair and efficient adjudication of superior to other available methods the controversy [ Rule 1. 220( b) ( 3)]. three subsections of Rule 1. 220( b) is required to Only one of the the four basic criteria of Rule 1. 220 ( a) . Pickett v. Iowa Beef supplement Processors, 1279; Rutstein, 1233- 34. to the individual elements of Rule 1. 220 ( a), the court Before turning law authorita~ive in all must begin with two basic and guiding principles of in motion for class class certification considerations. First, ruling on a certification, the substantive allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint are true. In re Infant Formula ..\ntitrust Litigation, 1992 WL 503465 accepted as 13, 1992 i ( Maurice Paul, District Judge) : Shelter at 3( M. D. Fla. January Allied Maintenance 574 F. 2d