SCOTUS Rejects Tactic Used to Secure Immediate Review of Class Cert. Denials
In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 'Microsoft v. Baker', which resolved an important jurisdictional issue concerning class action procedure, holding that a federal court of appeals does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice.
September 05, 2017 at 02:04 PM
22 minute read
In Microsoft v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (June 12, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court resolved an important jurisdictional issue concerning class action procedure, holding that a federal court of appeals does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice.
The plaintiffs in Baker brought a putative class action against the manufacturer of a popular video game console, the Xbox 360, alleging that the console was inherently defective. The district court entered an order striking the plaintiffs' class allegations, see 851 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (W.D. Wash. 2012), which is the functional equivalent of class certification denial. The plaintiffs filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking permission to appeal from the district court's order denying class certification. In support of their petition, the plaintiffs argued that the class certification denial would sound the death knell for the underlying litigation in light of the small economic value of their individual claims. The Ninth Circuit denied the Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory review.
Instead of pursuing their individual claims to a final judgment on the merits, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the district court to dismiss voluntarily their claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), but reserving the plaintiffs' right to revive their claims in the event of a reversal of the district court's certification denial and reinstatement of the class allegations. The reason for their motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs explained, was to secure a final judgment and then appeal from it, which would bring up for review the prior interlocutory order denying class certification. (Under the “merger rule,” prior interlocutory orders merge with the final judgment in a case, and such orders are reviewable on appeal from the final judgment to the extent that they affect it.) Microsoft stipulated to the voluntary dismissal without conceding the plaintiffs' right to appeal. After the district court's entry of an order granting the dismissal with prejudice, the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1291. The court reversed on the ground that the district court had abused its discretion in denying class certification. The court expressed no opinion on whether the class should be certified, holding only that the district court had applied an incorrect standard of review and remanding to that court for further consideration of the certification issue under a different standard. See 797 F.3d 607 (9th Cir. 2015).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute read'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readForward-Looking Statements Don't Support Securities Case Against Peloton Following Pandemic Spike
2 minute readWho Got the Work: NCAA Announces Defense Team in WDNY Hockey Players Antitrust Class Action
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 2After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
- 3Latham Lures Restructuring Partners From Weil, Paul Weiss
- 4Haynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
- 5Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250