Adams v. Califano (1979)

Cray., 948 F.2d 1380 , 1384 n.2 (3d Cir. 1991) (suggesting that a district court should certify a class where it would prevent a case from becoming moot); see also Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 268 , 123 S.Ct. 2411 , 156 L.Ed.2d 257 (2003) (stating that "class-action treatment was particularly important in this case because” the individual claims might have become moot); Dionne, 757 F.2d at 1344 ("There may ... be situations where a class certification under Rule 23(b)(2…

See Wright v. Califano, 587 F.2d 345, 349 (7th Cir.1978); Jones v. Califano, 576 F.2d 12, 19 (2d Cir.1978); Caswell v. Califano, 583 F.2d 9, 13 (1st Cir.1978); Kennedy v. Harris, 87 F.R.D. 372, 375 (S.D.Cal.1980); Adams v. Califano, 474 F.Supp. 974, 982 (D.Md.1979); Fitzgerald v. Schweiker, 538 F.Supp. 992, 997-98 (D.Md.1982). 27 Thus we hold that the trial court erred when it disregarded the controlling Liberty Alliance precedent and dismissed the complaint for lack of subj…

See Wright v. Califano, 587 F.2d 345, 349 (7th Cir.1978); Jones v. Califano, 576 F.2d 12, 19 (2d Cir.1978); Caswell v. Califano, 583 F.2d 9, 13 (1st Cir.1978); Kennedy v. Harris, 87 F.R.D. 372, 375 (S.D.Cal.1980); Adams v. Califano, 474 F.Supp. 974, 982 (D.Md.1979); Fitzgerald v. Schweiker, 538 F.Supp. 992, 997-98 (D.Md.1982).

Certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2) is “especially appropriate where, as here, the claims of the members of the class may become moot as the case progresses.” Adams v. Califano, 474 F.Supp. 974, 979 (D.Maryland 1979), aff’d sub nom.

Thus, even if the SSA reviewed the individual claims, it would be unlikely that the SSA would change its procedures for deciding whom to collect overpayments from simply because one claimant appealed and challenged the process. 11 See Adams, 474 F.Supp. at 982 (“The Secretary can, of course, change his own regulations or his interpretation of those regulations, but it is clear that any re interpretation or change will not occur during the course of a disability claim appeal.…

This issue was considered by the court in Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065, 1070 (5th Cir.1981) (cited with approval by the Sixth Circuit in Penland): Certification of a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) is “especially appropriate where, as here, the claims of the class may become moot as the case progresses.” Adams v. Califano, 474 F.Supp. 974, 979 (D.

Although certification can be used to avoid mootness, see Adams v. Califano, 474 F.Supp. 974, 979 (D.Md.1979), aff'd sub nom.

The court in Adams v. Califano, 474 F.Supp. 974, 984 (D.Md.1979), aff’d sub nom., Adams v. Harris, 643 F.2d 995 (4th Cir. 1981), rejected a claim of mootness under very similar facts.

See also Adams v. Califano, 474 F.Supp. 974 (D.Md.1979) (Northrop, J.). * Satisfaction of the first prerequisite, presentation of the claim to the Secretary, is more problematical.

See also Adams v. Califano, 474 F.Supp. 974, 975-76 (D.Md.1979), affd sub nom, Adams v. Harris, 643 F.2d 995, 996-97 (4th Cir.1981).