Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 343
procedural statute that impermissibly conflicts with Trial Rule 23 and, in the alternative,
that it was a substantive rule that results in an unconstitutional taking of property without
just compensation. The trial court disagreed with the plaintiff and ruled that Section 7
did not conflict with Trial Rule 23 and ordered the plaintiff to amend the complaint to
remove the class allegations. On appeal, the Indiana appellate court examined whether
Section 7, disallowing class actions against colleges during COVID, was a procedural or
substantive rule, and finding it to be substantive, then examined whether it
impermissibly conflicted with Trial Rule 23. The appellate court held that the conflict
between the rule and the statue “could not be more stark”. Id. at *15. Trial Rule 23
provides that a claimant “may” bring a class action, and Section 7 says that a claimant
“may not” do so; thus Section 7’s blanket prohibition of class actions effectively means
that a pleading with class allegation may not be filed in the first place. Thus, the
appellate court opined that Section 7 was a nullity, and it remanded the case back to the
trial court, thereby effectively allowing the plaintiff to plead a class action.
Louisiana
In Brantley, et al. v. City Of Gretna, 347 So.3d 1147 (La. App. 2022), the defendants,
the City of Gretna and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., appealed a trial court decision to
certify a class of drivers who had been assessed fines for speeding violations captured
by surveillance equipment within the city limits of Gretna, Louisiana. Pursuant to
Ordinance 3678 (the Ordinance), the Gretna Police Department contracted with Redflex
to enforce and administer a photographic vehicle speed enforcement system. Id. at
1154. Redflex placed mobile, photograph speed enforcement equipment in various
locations around the city. The equipment records a vehicle traveling in excess of the
posted speed limit, and takes a video and photograph of the vehicle. Once processed,
Redflex’s computer system auto-fills a citation form with the violation information. The
citations are reviewed by the Gretna police, and if it is determined that a violation has
occurred, Redflex is authorized to issue a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the vehicle’s
registered owner. Id. at 1154-55. Citation recipients could request an administrative
adjudication hearing to dispute the citation; but, if the hearing officer determined the
vehicle owner was liable, the owner was responsible for the fine, as well as an
additional sum for requesting the hearing. Id. Ticket recipients could also file a petition
for judicial review by the Mayor’s Court of the hearing officer’s decision, and a further
appeal for supervisory and/or appellate review of the Mayor’s Courts’ decision. Id. The
plaintiffs filed a class action against both Gretna and Redflex seeking a refund of all
fines; a declaratory judgment finding the Ordinance unlawful as an ultra vires act; and
injunctive relief prohibiting continued operation of the photo enforcement program. Id. at
1155-56. In certifying the class, the trial court concluded that the question common to
the class turned on whether the defendants’ administrative imposition of fines for
moving violations in the City of Gretna was in violation of a prohibitory law and an ultra
vires act done without authority. Id. at 1156. The trial court also concluded that the
plaintiffs had met the certification requirements set forth in Article 591 of the Louisiana
Code of Civil Procedure, and found it would be “imprudent” to try the cases individually
given the risk of incompatible judgments, and, the possibility that many of the claims for
recovery would be “small or nominal in nature.” Id. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,
the Louisiana court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding. In so doing, the court of
342
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
