Brief of Amici Curiae Professors Simona Grossi, Allan Ides, Et Al.--No. 16-2653

The district court’s application of Rule 23 is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy of the Federal Rules and their intended mission to promote “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” It frontloads the merits and discards the case before it can be fully developed. In essence, the district court opinion transforms a motion for certification into a motion for summary judgment. This treats the Federal Rules as independent obstacle to litigation process. But the Federal Rules must be read as outlining a system of procedure that is holistic and designed to give each case its rightful and thorough consideration. It is true that this more aggressive approach to access of justice might promote efficiency, help clear the docket, and provide solace to a wide array of institutional defendants. But judicial efficiency is only a legitimate value to the extent that it advances the project of justice; and a clear docket is not necessarily a just one. In this brief, we show how the district court’s reading and application of Rule 23 provides a crude method through which to dispose of a case, for it exalts case management considerations and the formality of procedure over substantive rights, and it does so without consideration of countervailing costs and consequences. The standard imposed by the district court is also in deep tension with the judicial obligation to provide a forum for the vindication of individual claims of right and with our constitutional commitment to the rule of law. Thus, we argue, the district court’s ruling demands reversal.