Opinion
Case No. 04-2297-DV.
August 12, 2004
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SCHEDULING ORDER
Mildred Isabel, Charles and Evalina Black, and Elizabeth Gate ("Plaintiffs") appeal the Magistrate Judge's Scheduling Order, entered June 7, 2004. The Scheduling Order provides for three months of pre-class certification discovery. Plaintiffs argue that allowing pre-class certification discovery is contrary to law.
A district court may reconsider any pretrial matter ruled upon by a magistrate judge "where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Plaintiffs contend that the Court should order conditional class certification, based solely on the allegations in the complaint and without the benefit of discovery related to class certification issues. The use of pre-class certification discovery, however, is simply not contrary to law.
Before certifying a class action, the district court must perform a "rigorous analysis" of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See Gen. Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982); Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d 709, 716 (6th Cir. 2000). A district court may not inquire into the merits of the plaintiff's claims as part of the certification determination. See Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974). The court does accept the allegations in the complaint as true, but a mere designation of the case as a class action in the complaint is not sufficient to show compliance with Rule 23. See In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (1996). But see Szabo v. Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 675-76 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that, in determining class certification, district court need not accept allegations in complaint as true but should instead make whatever factual or legal determinations are necessary before certification to resolve whether a class action may be maintained). Rather, it may be "necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question." Falcon, 457 U.S. at 160.
As the Sixth Circuit has stated,
Mere repetition of the language of Rule 23(a) is not sufficient. There must be an adequate statement of the basic facts to indicate that each requirement of the rule is fulfilled. Maintainability may be determined by the court on the basis of the pleadings, if sufficient facts are set forth, but ordinarily the determination should be predicated on more information than the pleadings will provide . . . The parties should be afforded an opportunity to present evidence on the maintainability of the class action.Weathers v. Peters Realty Corp., 499 F.2d 1197, 1200 (6th Cir. 1974) (emphasis added); see also Sirota v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 673 F.2d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1982) ("[T]here can be no doubt that it is proper for a district court, prior to certification of a class, to allow discovery and to conduct hearings to determine whether the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied.").
Clearly, then, substantial authority allows for pre-class certification discovery on the requirements of Rule 23. Plaintiffs have therefore not shown that the Magistrate Judge's decision to allow three months for pre-class certification discovery is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' appeal of the Magistrate Judge's scheduling order.