Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bivens v. Crowell
Citations: 138 F.R.D. 18; 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19055; 1990 WL 303425Docket: Civ. No. 90-318-S
Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire; October 15, 1990; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs are challenging the Town of Belmont’s general assistance program for needy residents and seek class certification for all applicants and recipients denied financial assistance under N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann. 165 (1989). Certification requires meeting the criteria of Rule 23(a) of Fed. R. Civ. P. and one of the categories in Rule 23(b). The burden is on the plaintiffs to demonstrate compliance with these standards. The analysis begins with numerosity, which requires that the class be so large that joining all members is impracticable. The named plaintiffs include three individuals with claims of unlawful treatment affecting at least seven others, totaling ten potential class members. The court finds this number insufficient to establish impracticability, especially since all members reside in Belmont and can be easily identified. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion regarding class size does not support certification. Regarding commonality, Rule 23(a)(2) necessitates shared legal or factual questions among class members. While there is a common legal issue regarding the alleged illegality of the Town’s policy, the court notes that the policy also fails to consider the individual circumstances of applicants, which complicates the claims. Thus, while a common legal question exists, the court remains unconvinced of the appropriateness of class certification at this stage. The plaintiffs challenge a policy that broadly denies benefits for arrearages without considering their causes or impacts on applicants' needs. The court finds that certifying a class would contradict the plaintiffs' objectives, referencing case law that supports the necessity of individual case assessments in determining benefit eligibility. The court concludes that the plaintiffs do not meet the numerosity or commonality requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and thus denies their motion. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that Belmont's general assistance program violates the Fourteenth Amendment by not being administered in a rational manner and contravenes N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. Ch. 165, which mandates assistance for citizens in need.