Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘injunctive relief’

I’m embarrassingly late in posting a link to a terrific article from Steptoe & Johnson Partner Jennifer Quinn-Barabanov entitled Has Dukes Killed Medical Monitoring?  The article, published in the November 2011 Issue of DRI’s For the Defense Magazine, explores the potential impact of the Supreme Court’s decision Dukes in defending against class certification of product liability claims that seek as a remedy medical monitoring of class members who were exposed to an allegedly harmful product.

I highly recommend Quinn-Barabanov’s article for those of you who may have missed it when it came out in November.  The article is a must-read for anyone facing (or prosecuting) a medical monitoring class action.

It also makes at least two key contributions that are independent of the medical monitoring context.  First, it offers an analysis of the potential application of various aspects of the Wal-mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes decision outside of the employment discrimination context, including the arguably heightened commonality analysis and the admissibility of expert testimony in support of class certification.  Second, it is a good primer on the possible distinctions between truly injunctive relief, which still may be the basis for a Rule 23(b)(2) class action, and merely equitable relief incidental to a claim for monetary relief, which the Dukes Court held cannot support class certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

Read Full Post »

Last week, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner authored an opinion addressing one of the key issues awaiting a ruling by the United States Supreme Court this term, holding that an employment discrimination class action seeking back pay could not be certified under FRCP 23(b)(2).   Here is a relevant excerpt from the opinion, Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp., No. 10-3446, slip op.  at 12-14 (7th Cir., March 30 2011) (I have removed the internal citations for ease of reading),

[I]magine if the plaintiffs in this case were just seeking an injunction commanding basepay equalization between male and female employees.

But that’s not what they’re seeking, exclusively or even mainly; and indeed this isn’t a proper Rule 23(b)(2) suit.  Class action lawyers like to sue under that provision because it is less demanding, in a variety of ways, than Rule 23(b)(3) suits, which usually are the only available alternative. . . . Of particular significance, “plaintiffs may attempt to shoehorn damages actions into the Rule 23(b)(2) framework, depriving class members of notice and opt-out protections. The incentives to do so are large. Plaintiffs’ counsel effectively gathers clients—often thousands of clients—by a certification under (b)(2). Defendants attempting to purchase res judicata may prefer certification under (b)(2) over (b)(3).” . . . How far Rule 23(b)(2) can be stretched is the issue in the gigantic class action against Wal-Mart, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. . . . now before the Supreme Court. The present case is not as big a stretch, but it is big enough. 

True, the only monetary relief sought is back pay; true, too—contrary to the common but erroneous notion that courts of equity can’t award monetary relief—they can do so if the award is merely incidental to the grant of an injunction or declaratory relief: “incidental” in the sense of requiring only a mechanical computation. That is the “clean-up” doctrine of equity. . . . In such a case, to make the class representative bring a second suit, for damages, on top of his injunctive action would create pointless redundancy. . . .

The plaintiffs argue that if only equitable relief is sought, a class action suit may be maintained under Rule 23(b)(2) even if the equitable relief is mainly monetary. We disagree. To read “injunctive” in the rule to mean “equitable” is to become mired in sticky questions of differentiating between “legal” and “equitable” actions—and such questions abound. . . .  We can avoid the mire by recognizing that Rule 23(b)(2) class actions are limited to cases in which “final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief” is appropriate, rather than extending to all cases in which any kind of equitable relief is sought. . . . The monetary relief sought in a case, whether denominated legal or equitable, may make the case unsuitable for Rule 23(b)(2) treatment. . . .  As this case illustrates: calculating the amount of back pay to which the members of the class would be entitled if the plaintiffs prevailed would require 500 separate hearings. The monetary tail would be wagging the injunction dog. An injunction thus “would not provide ‘final’ relief as required by Rule 23(b)(2). An injunction is not a final remedy if it would merely lay an evidentiary foundation for subsequent determinations of liability.”

Could it be that the resolution of this issue is as simple as the recognition that “equitable” doesn’t mean “injunctive” and that class actions seeking monetary relief, whether “equitable” or “legal” can only be brought under Rule 23(b)(3), not Rule 23(b)(2)?  The Supreme Court should have an answer within the next two months.

Read Full Post »

The Wal-Mart v. Dukes argument was held as scheduled today.  Here is a Wal-Mart v. Dukes Oral Argument Transcript.  Some initial observations:

  • The beginning of the defendant’s argument was focused on the proper standard for reviewing whether the plaintiff had sufficiently common evidence of a uniform policy.
  • It was not until later in the defendant’s argument that the questioning turned to the question certified for review: whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class action should be certified in a class action seeking monetary relief in the form of back pay.  Questioning on this issue continued into the plaintiff’s argument, but then returned to questions of what standard should apply more generally in certifying an employment discrimination class action.
  • On balance, the tougher questioning of the defendant’s attorney was from the more liberal faction of the court, and the tougher question of the plaintiff’s attorney was from the more conservative faction of the court. 
  • However, to the extent the questions can be a sign of a potential split in the Court (always a dangerous assumption), it is interesting that Justice Ginsburg seemed particularly troubled by the plaintiff’s position on the applicability of Rule 23(b)(2) to the back pay claims.
  • Overall, the sentiment seemed to be against allowing Rule 23(b)(2) to be used as a vehicle to resolve individual back pay claims (again, recognizing that the nature and tone of oral argument questions is not a very reliable way to predict outcomes).  However, there seemed to be some support among several Justices for the possibility that a case could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief only, on the ground that hiring policies are discriminatory because they are excessively subjective.

Read Full Post »

The Baker Hostetler website has a new Executive Alert discussing the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., Case no. 09-1725, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2830, and its potential implications.  Kartman addressed, among other things, the applicability of Rule 23(b)(2) to consumer class actions in which the ultimate goal is to recover money for class members.  According to the Executive Alert:

This decision is significant in its rejection of the creative attempt to certify a class of consumer claims for injunctive relief, the analysis of the “finality” and “appropriateness” elements of Rule 23(b)(2) for which little authority exists, and the willingness to delve into the merits of the underlying claims to determine that class certification was not appropriate.

Congratulations to my partner, Mark Johnson, and the rest of his team in Columbus on their victory in the case on behalf of State Farm.

Read Full Post »