Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
U.S. Supreme Court to Take Up Class Actions Again
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: June 3, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
Class-action lawsuits continue to dominate the U.S. Supreme Court’s business docket. The justices recently agreed to consider Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp.
The case involves price-fixing allegations by the Mississippi Attorney General against several electronics companies regarding the sale of liquid-crystal displays. The attorney general filed the lawsuit in state court and seeks to keep it there. Meanwhile, the LCD makers want to remove the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
As we have previously discussed on this Business Law Blog, the 2005 law gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million in sum or value. The goal is to ensure that large class-action lawsuits are decided in federal court and to deter abuse of the class-action process in state courts. To accomplish this goal, when more than $5 million is at stake, the CAFA allows class actions to be removed to federal court, giving defendants the benefit of federal procedural protections.
The question before the Supreme Court is whether Mississippi’s lawsuit is a “mass action” under the CAFA, given that the state is the sole plaintiff, the claims arise under state law, and the state attorney general possesses statutory and common-law authority to assert all claims in the complaint.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that CAFA still applies, adopting a “claim by claim” approach. The court considered not only who filed the suit but also who would benefit. Using this framework, the appeals court concluded that because Mississippi consumers were parties in interest, the case should be removed to the federal court.
The current Supreme Court has been notoriously business friendly, particularly when it comes to class actions. We will be closely tracking this case and will let you know if the trend continues next term.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
U.S. Supreme Court to Take Up Class Actions Again
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Class-action lawsuits continue to dominate the U.S. Supreme Court’s business docket. The justices recently agreed to consider Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp.
The case involves price-fixing allegations by the Mississippi Attorney General against several electronics companies regarding the sale of liquid-crystal displays. The attorney general filed the lawsuit in state court and seeks to keep it there. Meanwhile, the LCD makers want to remove the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
As we have previously discussed on this Business Law Blog, the 2005 law gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over class actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million in sum or value. The goal is to ensure that large class-action lawsuits are decided in federal court and to deter abuse of the class-action process in state courts. To accomplish this goal, when more than $5 million is at stake, the CAFA allows class actions to be removed to federal court, giving defendants the benefit of federal procedural protections.
The question before the Supreme Court is whether Mississippi’s lawsuit is a “mass action” under the CAFA, given that the state is the sole plaintiff, the claims arise under state law, and the state attorney general possesses statutory and common-law authority to assert all claims in the complaint.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that CAFA still applies, adopting a “claim by claim” approach. The court considered not only who filed the suit but also who would benefit. Using this framework, the appeals court concluded that because Mississippi consumers were parties in interest, the case should be removed to the federal court.
The current Supreme Court has been notoriously business friendly, particularly when it comes to class actions. We will be closely tracking this case and will let you know if the trend continues next term.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Christine Vanek, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.