Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

See v. City of Fort Wayne

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

May 10, 2018

KEITH SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT WAYNE, in its official capacity Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Keith See's First Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 69]. Defendant City of Fort Wayne timely filed its Response to the Plaintiff's First Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 70]. The Plaintiff timely filed his Reply [ECF No. 71]. This matter is thus fully briefed and ripe for review.

         BACKGROUND

         This background is provided through the pleadings, class certification motions, and attached exhibits. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has an official policy of seizing and summarily destroying the unattended property of homeless individuals. (First Am. Class Action Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 17.) More specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has conducted more than ten raids on camps of homeless individuals in the downtown and central areas of Fort Wayne between December 2014 and May 2016. (Id. ¶ 2.) After each raid, the Defendant destroyed any seized property without providing individuals an opportunity or procedure to reclaim the seized property, prevent its destruction, or receive compensation. (Id.)

         The Plaintiff hopes to prevent these raids, and has brought this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated as a member in the following proposed class:

All individuals residing in Fort Wayne, Indiana who are homeless or without a fixed address possessing personal property that may be left temporarily unattended and subject to the seizure and destruction policy of Defendant.

(Id. ¶ 12.)

         The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant conducted each raid knowing that the property seized belonged to homeless individuals who were only temporarily absent from the site of their property. (Id. ¶ 25.) The Plaintiff further declares that the Defendant has never provided homeless individuals with an alternative location to live or store personal property not subject to the Defendant's policy. (Id. ¶ 27.)

         The Defendant's policy negatively impacted the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff lived in a homeless encampment in downtown Fort Wayne in March 2016. (Id. ¶ 30.) On or about March 21, 2016, the Defendant evicted homeless individuals from the encampment and seized and destroyed these individuals' personal property, including the Plaintiff's coat. (Id. ¶ 31.) The Plaintiff reasonably feared further property seizure and destruction, and as such had to move from additional homeless encampments on May 3 and May 5, 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 38.) The Defendant opposes class certification, and also highlights that the Plaintiff is no longer homeless.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         If a proposed class meets all of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and one of the requirements of Rule 23(b), then class certification is proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 1992). Rule 23(a) is satisfied if:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.