Darrington et al v. Missouri Department of Mental Health et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
DEBRA DARRINGTON, as next friend
for M.R., et al., on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
MENTAL HEALTH, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-04268-MDH
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Decertify the Evaluation Class. (Doc. 126).
Defendants separately filed a Rule 23(f) petition seeking review of this Court’s certification order
by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and moved this Court to stay preliminary injunction
proceedings. (Doc. 119). Defendants state that the Evaluation Class does not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and should be decertified because Plaintiff D.W. has never met the
Evaluation Class definition, and therefore D.W. is not an adequate class representative. Defendants
further argue that D.W.’s claims are not typical of the class claims; Plaintiffs have not presented
any evidence of numerosity for the Evaluation Class; and the class lacks commonality due to the
statutory good cause framework for extending evaluation times.
On June 16, 2026, this Court certified two classes and directed the parties to propose dates
for a preliminary injunction hearing to occur within 60 days. Defendants have petitioned the Eighth
Circuit for a review of the certification order. A ruling on that petition has not yet been issued.
Defendants state that even if Defendants’ Rule 23(f) petition is not granted, the Evaluation Class
cannot proceed because no Named Plaintiff has ever been a member of the Evaluation Class.
Case 2:25-cv-04268-MDH Document 130 Filed 07/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
A district court has a continuing obligation to ensure that a certified class satisfies Rule
23(a) and (b) throughout the litigation, and it must decertify the class if those requirements are not
met. In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 847 F.3d 608, 612 (8th Cir. 2017). A
motion to decertify a class may be brought at any time, and its review is de novo: the Court owes
no deference to its prior certification ruling when newly presented arguments demonstrate that
Rule 23’s requirements are not met. See, e.g., Webb v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 856 F.3d 1150, 1156
(8th Cir. 2017) (affirming decertification of a class where further analysis revealed that “the nature
of the claims were more ‘nuanced’ than the district court had originally considered” (citation
omitted)).
In addition, for a class to proceed, it must be represented by a named plaintiff who “fairly
and adequately protect[s] the interests of the class,” with claims and defenses “typical of the claims
or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3), (4). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that a class representative “must be part of the class[.]” E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys. v. Rodriguez,
431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977); see also Oetting v. Norton, 795 F.3d 886, 890 (8th Cir. 2015) (“It is
axiomatic that the lead plaintiff must fit the class definition.” (citations omitted)). A class must be
decertified when it lacks a proper representative and in fact “courts routinely decertify classes
where, before trial, it becomes apparent that there is no class representative.” Monaco v. Hogan,
No. 98-CV 3386, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44724, *25 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) (unpublished)
(collecting cases) (citing Briggs v. Anderson, 796 F.2d 1009, 1019 (8th Cir. 1986)).
In light of Defendants’ motion, the Court has reviewed the record and confirmed that
Defendants conducted and filed D.W.’s evaluation 58 days after the court order. As a result, D.W.
never “await[ed] evaluation for more than 90 days beyond an order of the circuit court.” The
Court’s prior ruling that D.W. waited 183 days “beyond an order of the circuit court” ordering his
Case 2:25-cv-04268-MDH Document 130 Filed 07/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
evaluation, or that he was on a “waitlist” for competency evaluation, was incorrect. The Court
agrees D.W. is not a proper representative for the Evaluation Class.
Based on an additional review of the record, and Defendants’ motion to decertify the
Evaluation Class, the Court finds D.W. is not a member of the Evaluation Class and as a result
lacks standing to pursue claims on behalf of the Evaluation Class. Therefore, as currently pled, the
Evaluation Class lacks an adequate representative.1 See Alleruzzo v. SuperValu, Inc. (In re
SuperValu, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.), 870 F.3d 763, 768 (8th Cir. 2017) (“A putative
class action can proceed as long as one named plaintiff has standing.” (citations omitted)).
For this specific reason, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to decertify the
Evaluation Class. The Court’s ruling is based on D.W.’s lack of standing. The Court finds that
with a proper class representative its additional rulings on numerosity and commonality could be
established. However, in light of D.W.’s lack of standing, the Court decertifies the Evaluation
Class for lack of an adequate representative. This Order is limited to D.W.’s standing for the
Evaluation Class and has no effect on any other ruling previously entered by the Court.
Finally, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay proceedings pending resolution
of the Rule 23(f) petition. The Court ORDERS that this case is hereby stayed pending resolution
of the petition to appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 16, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Plaintiffs’ opposition argues it should be granted leave to substitute a proper class representative
as opposed to decertification. However, at this time a motion to substitute a proper class
representative has not been filed and as pled D.W. is not a proper class representative.
Case 2:25-cv-04268-MDH Document 130 Filed 07/16/26 Page 3 of 3