State Attorney General Parens Patriae Actions Are Not Removable to Federal Court as CAFA “Mass Actions”

by Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
Contact

This week the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp. that parens patriae actions in which the State is the sole plaintiff are not “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA or the Act). The ruling means that such parens patriae suits are not removable to federal court under CAFA’s mass action provisions. Remaining in state court presents an additional challenge to defending parens patriae actions, which often carry exposure commensurate with class actions but which lack the procedural protections of CAFA and Rule 23. Many industries may now face increased litigation exposure. Click here for the opinion.

The decision resolves a split of authority in the U.S. Courts of Appeals about whether unnamed persons who are real parties in interest to named plaintiffs’ claims can be counted in order to satisfy the “100 or more persons” requirement for a CAFA mass action. Focusing on fundamental principles of statutory interpretation, the Court concluded that only named plaintiffs count toward the numerosity requirement. 

AU Optronics is a parens patriae action filed in state court by the Mississippi Attorney General against manufacturers of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) for alleged price fixing in violation of state law. The State sought multiple forms of relief including restitution for the State’s purchases of LCD products and for the purchases made by the State’s citizens. The complaint was strikingly similar to earlier class action complaints consolidated in a federal court multidistrict litigation, and the Mississippi Attorney General  hired the same plaintiffs’ class counsel to litigate the copycat parens patriae action. 

The LCD manufacturers removed the case to federal court under CAFA’s mass action provisions. The federal district court, finding that the State of Mississippi’s suit was not a class action, proceeded to analyze whether the suit was a mass action. CAFA defines a mass action to mean “any civil action … in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact.”

Relying on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit precedent, Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Insurance Co., 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008), the district court opined that the case was a mass action because 100 or more unidentified Mississippi consumers had purchased LCD screens and accordingly were real parties in interest to the State’s restitution claims. The district court, however, remanded the case after finding that all of the claims were being “asserted on behalf of the general public (and not on behalf of individual claimants or members of a purported class),” and so CAFA’s “general public exception” applied.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the suit met CAFA’s numerosity requirement because there were more than 100 real parties in interest—individual purchasers of LCD products—even though the State was the only named plaintiff. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, however, with the district court’s conclusion that the suit fell within the “general public exception,” because not all of the claims were being asserted on behalf of the general public. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that the case was removable to federal court. In a concurring opinion, one of the circuit judges noted that the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits had found similar lawsuits not removable, contrary to the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision in Allstate.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split and reversed the Fifth Circuit.  Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that Congress did not intend for the word “persons” to refer to “unnamed real persons in interest” in the mass action context. The Court reasoned that the express omission of “unnamed persons” in the mass action provision was intentional, given that other parts of the Act explicitly use the term “named or unnamed persons.” For example, in CAFA’s requirements for a “class action” to be removable, Congress specified that “named or unnamed” persons would be counted. The mass action provision, by contrast, does not refer to “named or unnamed” persons.   

The Court also explained that Congress’ use of the phrase “100 or more persons” directly refers to the same individuals characterized as the “plaintiffs” later in the mass action provision. The Court further reasoned that the term “plaintiffs” cannot have different meanings within the same statute, and applying the defendants’ proffered interpretation throughout would be unworkable. This is because CAFA only extends mass action jurisdiction to “plaintiffs” whose individual claims each exceed $75,000. To interpret “plaintiffs” to mean “unnamed individuals” would cause an administrative nightmare, wrote the Court, because courts would be forced to identify the unnamed persons whose claims were worth less than $75,000, perhaps via an evidentiary hearing involving hundreds of thousands of claimants. Even if a court were to undertake such an “unwieldy inquiry,” it would then have to remand to state court the claimants who fell below the jurisdictional threshold, resulting in parallel state and federal litigation.

The entire CAFA statutory context also reinforced the Court’s interpretation. First, CAFA’s provision governing transfer motions requires that a “majority of the plaintiffs” must agree on a transfer once a mass action has been removed to federal court. If that definition included “unnamed individuals,” determining a “majority of the plaintiffs” would not be possible. Likewise, Congress’ primary concerns when enacting CAFA were class actions, with the mass action provisions merely a “backstop.” The Court reasoned that if Congress wanted representative actions brought by States to be removable, then the class action provisions would have provided that option. 

This ruling will likely be seen as a setback for proponents of class action reform, for whom CAFA took a significant step toward centralizing large class actions in federal court, and who cheered recent Supreme Court decisions that imposed more rigorous requirements for class certification and enforced arbitration provisions, including class action waivers. Parens patriae actions present unique challenges for target defendants. Unlike traditional class actions under Rule 23 and state law corollaries, parens patriae actions do not afford courts the gatekeeping role found in the certification test; instead, parens patriae actions often proceed directly to the merits. Whereas a traditional class or mass action might be limited by arbitration clauses, a parens patriae action may face no such impediment even where the beneficiaries of the relief sought are, in fact, parties to binding arbitration agreements. This ruling likely means that more of these high-exposure cases will have to be defended in state courts, without the protections of CAFA, Rule 23, and recent Supreme Court precedent reining in certain class action practices. 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
Contact
more
less

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!