In a setback for Black Lives Matter of Los Angeles and individual protesters, a federal appeals court has vacated class certification in a lawsuit alleging excessive force by the Los Angeles police during the George Floyd protests in 2020.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling and opinion on Sept. 6 that found fault with how a lower court handled the requirements for establishing damages classes, which are central to class action lawsuits. The appeals court vacated the class certification and sent the case back to the district court for further review, creating an obstacle for the plaintiffs by requiring them to meet higher legal standards for class certification, adding to the complexity, time, and cost of the litigation, while diminishing their overall leverage.

The lawsuit, originally filed by Black Lives Matter of Los Angeles, several grassroots organizations, and individuals, accused the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) of using unconstitutional tactics in response to the protests, including excessive force, unlawful arrests, and free speech violations. The plaintiffs sought to represent four distinct groups, or classes, that were impacted by the LAPD’s actions. The four classes were: those subjected to direct force, those arrested during the protests, individuals charged with infractions, and those seeking injunctive relief.

Initially, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified all four classes, agreeing with the plaintiffs in their claim that LAPD customs and policies may have caused widespread injuries during the protests. However, in its Sept. 6 ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel found that the lower court had failed to perform a “rigorous analysis,” as required by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, which govern class certification.

The Ninth Circuit found fault with how the district court handled the “commonality” and “predominance” requirements for the damages classes. Under Rule 23(a), the court must ensure that there are common questions that apply to all class members, while Rule 23(b) requires that these common questions predominate over any individual ones. The appeals panel determined that the lower court did not sufficiently analyze these criteria, especially given the fact-specific nature of the plaintiffs’ claims, such as whether excessive force was used and under what specific circumstances.

For instance, the court highlighted the case of Abigail Rodas, one of the representative plaintiffs, who suffered a broken jaw during a protest. The evidence around Rodas’s injury was conflicting, with medical records suggesting she may have tripped rather than being hit in the face with a rubber bullet, as she had claimed. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that such individual fact disputes complicate the question of whether these claims could be resolved on a class-wide basis.

“The plaintiffs have not shown the existence of common evidence that can resolve in ‘one stroke’ the class members’ claims that hinge on a wide array of facts and circumstances,” the panel wrote, referencing the complex nature of each individual’s experience during the protests and vacating the “Direct Force Class” certification.

The Ninth Circuit decision also vacated certification of the “Arrest Class” and the “Infraction Class.” The plaintiffs in these groups argued that they were subjected to prolonged detention in tight handcuffs without food, water, or bathroom access. However, the appeals court panel found that individual experiences varied significantly—some protesters were given water, while others were not—making it difficult to resolve the claims with common evidence.

The panel also vacated the “Injunctive Relief Class,” whose members sought to enjoin the LAPD from repeating the alleged misconduct during future protests. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court had not identified any common questions that could be resolved for the entire class.

While the ruling marks a win for the City of Los Angeles and former LAPD Chief Michel Moore, who was named in the lawsuit, it does not mark the end of the legal battle.

Black Lives Matter of Los Angeles, which did not respond to a request for comment on the ruling, and the other plaintiffs now have the opportunity to attempt to re-certify the classes by providing more detailed evidence to meet the legal standard outlined by the Ninth Circuit in its opinion.

The lawsuit stemmed from the protests that erupted across Los Angeles in the wake of George Floyd’s death in police custody in Minneapolis in May 2020.

The plaintiffs in the case alleged that the LAPD engaged in a longstanding pattern of using excessive force against protesters.