PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 20-2128 __________ MONIQUE RUSSELL; JASMINE RIGGINS; ELSA M. POWELL; and DESIRE EVANS, v. EDUCATIONAL COMMISSION FOR FOREIGN MEDICAL GRADUATES, Appellant __________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court No. 2:18-cv-05629) District Judge: Honorable Joshua D. Wolson __________ Argued February 11, 2021 Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Filed: September 24, 2021) __________ William R. Peterson [ARGUED] Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Matthew D. Klayman Brian W. Shaffer Morgan Lewis & Bockius 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellant Nicholas M. Centrella Robin S. Weiss Conrad O’Brien 1500 Market Street West Tower, Suite 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Brent P. Ceryes Schochor Federico & Staton 1211 Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Brenda Harkavy Patrick A. Thronson [ARGUED] Janet Janet & Suggs 4 Reservoir Circle, Suite 200 Baltimore, MD 21208 Scott L. Nelson Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 2 Paul M. Vettori Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos 100 North Charles Street One Charles Center, 22nd Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 Cory L. Zajdel Z Law 2345 York Road, Suite B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Counsel for Appellee Diana Huang American Medical Association 25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 Leonard A. Nelson American Medical Association 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 39300 Chicago, IL 60611 Counsel for Amicus American Medical Association, As- sociation of American Medical Colleges, and Pennsyl- vania Medical Society in support of Appellant Gilbert Dickey McGuireWoods 201 North Tryon Street, Suite 3000 Charlotte, NC 28202 Matthew A. Fitzgerald McGuireWoods 800 East Canal Street 3 Gateway Plaza Richmond, VA 23219 Counsel for Amicus Chamber of Commerce in support of Appellant __________ OPINION OF THE COURT __________ RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. This case presents the question whether the District Court abused its discretion when it certified an “issue class” pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- dure. We hold that it did. According to Rule 23(c)(4), “[w]hen appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues.” For “an action” to be “brought or maintained as a class action,” the party seeking class status must satisfy Rule 23 and all its requirements. Com- cast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013). Further, in Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 655 F.3d 255 (3d Cir. 2011), we enumerated a “non-exclusive list of factors” relevant to as- sessing whether the certification of an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) is “appropriate.” Id. at 272 (quoting Chiang v. Vene- man, 385 F.3d 256, 267 (3d Cir. 2004)). So when a party seeks to certify “particular issues” for class treatment, the district court must ask three questions. First, does the proposed issue class satisfy Rule 23(a)’s requirements? Second, does the pro- posed issue class fit within one of Rule 23(b)’s categories? Third, if it does, is it “appropriate” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals