Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. ___ (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined whether a class-action suit was properly removed to federal district court as a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act.[1] The court unanimously determined (Justice Sotomayor delivering the court's opinion) that since the state of Mississippi was the sole plaintiff in the lawsuit, the case did not constitute a mass action for the purposes of the Act.[1]

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.
Argued November 6, 2013
Decided January 14, 2014
Full case nameMississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.
Docket no.12-1036
Citations571 U.S. ___ (more)
134 S. Ct. 736; 187 L. Ed. 2d 654; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 645; 82 U.S.L.W. 4056
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorPetitioners motion granted, US Dis. Ct.; reversed, 701 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2012)
Holding
Under the Class Action Fairness Act, because Mississippi is the only named plaintiff, the suit does not qualify as a "mass action" – that is, a civil action "in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiff's claims involve common questions of law or fact."
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajoritySotomayor, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

The case turned on a question of statutory construction. The Act defined a mass action as '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'. The State of Mississippi sought restitution from a liquid crystal display (LCD) manufacturer, including restitution for purchases of LCD products made by Mississippi citizens. The court held that the reference in the Act to '100 or more persons' referred to actual plaintiffs and not to any individuals (in this case, unnamed Mississippi citizens) who may have an interest in, or benefit from, the action.[1]

References

  1. Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 12-1036, 571 U.S. ___ (2014).



This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.