This opinion begins: “Heads up: if the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office booked you into jail before September 9, 2024, it probably posted your mugshot, birthdate, and other personal information on its website without explaining in that public post that you hadn’t been convicted of a crime and were presumed innocent.” The court then explained that this was a false-light lawsuit and addressed whether the case was amenable to class-action status. The trial court denied class certification, and the court of appeals affirmed. The false light elements require plaintiff-specific facts, and Rule 23’s requirements of commonality and typicality were not met merely because the Sheriff published the mugshots and personal information. A few thoughts: if there was a need for a court to give a “heads up,” wasn’t that given years ago in the federal substantive due process case brought by the plaintiff? The opinion ends with emphasizing that the court has not decided whether the plaintiff or any other person has a viable claim against the Sheriff. One final point on style: we are concerned with the swagger, but we understand.

link to opinion