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

While the claims and defenses raised in the record thus far are clear, the defendant, as do most partie.s opposing certification of a class, asserts that individual questions predominate. The Court disagrees and finds to the contrary. Parties opposing class certification commonly argue that the complexities of their conduct and the differences between class members, whether pla.intiff or defendant 1 create notable distinctions that cause distinctive and individual issues to predominate in the action. Such parties also frequently point to the different amounts of damages and other variances affecting class members that 1 they argue., would require a huge number of individual trials on those asserted distinctive features. This Court, like virtually every court confronted with such argument, finds it relatively simple to observe that the nature of each local government' s taxing authority and challenged conduct is sufficiently similar to suffice for certification of both classes. Each member of the plaintiff class is required to pay an occupational license tax imposed by an ordinance which is alleged to transgress the constitutionally mandated separation of powers doctrine and intrudes upon the constitutionally assigned exclusive powers of the Florida Supreme Court. That is the overriding common question and issue expressed by the Plaintiff class. Similarly, each city and county in the defendant class enacted and enforces an ordinance mandating the payment of an occupational license tax pursuant to enabling legislation found only in Chapter 205, Fla. Stat. The issues and questions surrounding that equation could hardly be more predominant. In its consideration of predominance, the Court has focused on the allegations and defenses set forth in the pleadings, as well as the applicable substantive legal theories necessary to ( i) establish the plaintiff class' potential entitlement to the relief sought, and ( ii) establish the uniformity of conduct by each member of the de.fendant class, and the uniformity of the No. 03- S4iS Page IOof 16 Pages PiIUJ. 10 or 14$ paq. s c... legal consequences of such conduct. In the instant action, the uniformity of both legal theory and proof satisfies the Court that the seminal of questlon each predominates over any individualized of law question or fact. See 7A Charles Alan Wright and M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, Development in the Law: Class Actions, 89 Harvard L. R. 1318 ( 1976); Anderson v. Bank of the South, 118 F. R. D. 136, 150 ( M. D. Fla. 1987); Goldwater v. Alston and Bird, 116 F. R. D. 342, 354 ( S. D. Ill. 1987); Sterling v. Velsical Chemical Corp., 855 F2d 1188, 1196- 97 ( 6th Cir. 1988). The Court finds that the critical issues in the instant case are subject to generalized proof, and thus are applicable to each class as a whole . Therefore, the questions of law fact ( this or although action presents for determination only questions of law) subject to generalized proof predominate over questions affecting only individual members of either class. The Court has focused on how the claims and defenses will be presented, not whether any such claims or defenses have merit. VII. SUPERIORITY To the extent that this action concerns b) ( 3) a ( plaintiff class, Rule 1.220 ( b) ( 3) also requires the Court to consider the issue of whether a class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient of adjudication the controversy, otherwise referred to as " superiority#. Four factors guide the Court' s determination of whether use of the class action procedural mechanism is superior to other available methods of adjudication: 1) The respective interests of each member of the class in individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims or defenses: 2) The nature and extent of pending litigation; 3) The desirability of the concentrating litigation in the forum where the subject action is instituted; and 4) The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management CU. No. 03- 5425 Page t I of 16 Pages h~. 11 or 14 P&p. of the claim or defense on behalf of a class. There are no other lawsuits ' pending that involve either the parties or claims This action initiated in 2002, and has the substantive presented. was and discovery. ven GJ.. the proceeded through motions, interlocutory appeal with the action, its history, factual and legal Court' s familiarity and the substantive law governing the action, it would be an backgrou.nd, of to litigate in other circuit courts inefficient use judicial resources re- the common issue of whether city and county occupational license tax the authority granted by Chapter 205, Fla.$ tgc. ordinances enacted pursuant to the of doctrine. The Court uncons1;l tutionally transgress separation powers action