Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion Pursuant to Rule 23
Public Court Documents
March 5, 1977
6 pages
-
Case Files, Hatcher v. Methodist Hospital - Hardbacks. Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion Pursuant to Rule 23, 1977. ff352489-5484-f111-ab0f-7ced8d2181dd. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/b5173bb4-61f5-4110-a795-bc934e485961/memorandum-in-opposition-to-defendants-motion-pursuant-to-rule-23. Accessed October 10, 2026.
Copied!
[||5eab5bb4-14aa-47a9-8367-8647ccabb45d||] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
BARBARA LEEK WESSON, :
BERNICE TERRY, EDDIE GRAY, and
ROSA KEETON, -
Plaintiffs, :
-VS - : CAUSE NO, 76-373
METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC.,
An Indiana Not-For-Profit
Corporation, and JOSEPH CALIFANO,
United States Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare. :
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MO-
TION PURSUANT TO RULE 23 OF THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL: PROCEDURE
JACK GREENBERG
BETH J. LIEF
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
JULIAN ALLEN
2009 Broadway
Gary, Indiana
MARILYN G. ROSE
CHRISTINE B. HICKMAN
1751 N Street, N.W,
Washington, D.C. 20036
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
BARBARA LEEK WESSON,
BERNICE TERRY, EDDIE GRAY, and
ROSA KEETON,
Plaintiffs, :
- NS
L
L
CAUSE NO, #76-373
METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC,,
An Indiana Not-For-Profit
Corporation, and JOSEPH CALIFANO,
United States Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS MOTION PURSUANT TO
RULE 23 OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
This memorandum is submitted in opposition to the motion of
defendant, Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. pursuant to Rules 23(c) and
23(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order determining
that this action not be brought as a class action or in the alternative
for an order requiring the representative plaintiffs to give written
notice to all members of the class as defined by the court.
I
IT IS PREMATURE TO MAKE
A CLASS ACTION DETERMINATION
AT THE TIME
Rule 23(c) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:
"As soon as practicable after the commencement of
an action brought as a class action, the court
shall determine by order whether it is to be so
maintained. An order under this subdivision may
be conditional, and may be altered or amended be-
fore the decision on the merits."
It is hardly practicable to make a class action determination at
this time given the present posture of this case. Defendant Methodist
Hospital of Gary, Inc. has not yet filed an answer and defendant Secre-
tary of HEW has not even made an appearance. Moreover, a motion to
dismiss by defendant Methodist Hospital is presently pending before
the court on the grounds, inter alia, that the court lacks jurisdiction
over the complaint. It is proper for a court to determine first whether
it has jurisdiction prior to making a ruling on the propriety of the
suit proceeding as a class action. City of Inglewood ve. City of Los
Angeles, 451 F, 24° 948, 951 (9th Cir. 1972);
The requirement that a class action determination be made "as soon
as practicable" "leaves much room for descretion." Id. "[It] will ob-
viously vary from case to case". Frankel: Some Preliminary Observa-
tions Concerning Civil Rule 23, 43 F.R.D. 39, 41-42 (D.C. 1968).
A Rule 23(b) (3) action must be certified early in the litigation to
assure timely notice to class members and other preliminary determina-
tions. In contrast, an action maintained under Rule 23(b) (2) requires
only a reference to the class in the judgement. Accordingly, the
certification issue in a 23(b) (2) action may be resolved concurrently
with the merits without undermining the viability of the class action.
Jimenez v. Weinberger, 523 F, 2d 689, 697-702 (7th Cir. 1975) (now,
Mr. Justice Stevens) (and discussion and authorities cited therein) .
The wise use of discretion dictates that a class action ruling be held
in abeyance until issue is joined and until the court determines the
jurisdictional issues raised in the defendant's motion to
dismiss.
II
IT IS IMPROPER TO RE-
QUIRE NOTICE TO MEMBERS
OF THE CLASS
It is important to stress that this action is prose-
cuted as a class action under Rule 23(b) (2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and that the only relief sought is
prospective injunctive relief, In cases arising under
23(b) (2), putative class members cannot "opt out" of, the
class, and the benefits of notice are dubious. To require
notice at this time would, in addition, be unduly burden-
some to the assertion by plaintiffs of their civil rights.
A prospective injunctive such as plaintiffs seek can be
awarded in the absence of a class determination. In such
a situation, the need or wisdom for mandating notice is
totally absent, C,f.,United States Allegheny-Ludlum In-
dustries, Inc,, 517 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1975).
Il
CONCLUS ION
For the reasons set forth above, any determination as
to the propriety of this action proceeding as a class
action should be held in abeyance pending the appearance
of all parties, the filing of responsive pleadings, and
the determination of the motion to dismiss. Notice should
not be required on the grounds that it is unnecessary and
unduly burdensome. The motion of defendant Methodist
Hospital of Gary, Inc. pursuant to Rule 23 should be denied
in all respects.
Respectfully submitted,
A ,
No ou A ( if, 0 7
UA < jp AN § a \ A en A a
JACK GREENBERG
BETH J. LIEF
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
JULIAN ALLEN
2009 Broadway
Gary, Indiana
MARILYN G. ROSE
CHRISTINE HICKMAN
1751 N Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing MEMORANDUM
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 23 OF THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE was served by United States
Mail, postage prepaid, on the 5th day of March, 1977, on
counsel for defendants as follows:
HODGES, DAVIS, GRUENBERG, COMPTON
& SAYERS, BRUCE E., SAYERS, ESQ.
5525 Broadway
Gary, India 46401
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT METHODIST
HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC,
} “ al \ / {
ISAC Ve (IAA
BETH J. LIEF b
Attorney For Plaintiffs [||5eab5bb4-14aa-47a9-8367-8647ccabb45d||]