Supreme Court of the United States ------ ------SCOTT GILCHRIST and the ESTATE of CARLTON CHESTER “COOKIE” GILCHRIST, Petitioner, V
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SCOTT GILCHRIST AND THE ESTATE OF CARLTON CHESTER “COOKIE” GILCHRIST, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, ET AL., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- CULLIN A. O’BRIEN,ESQ. Counsel of Record Supreme Court Bar No. 275829 CULLIN O’BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Tel: (561) 676-6370 [email protected] ANTONINO G. HERNANDEZ, ESQ. JARED H. BECK, ESQ. ANTONINO G. HERNANDEZ, P.A. ELIZABETH LEE BECK, ESQ. 4 SE 1st St. 2nd Floor BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS Miami, FL 33131 Corporate Park at Kendall Tel: (305) 282-3698 12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205 [email protected] Miami, FL 33186 Tel: (305) 234-2060 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Scott Gilchrist and the Estate of Carlton Chester “Cookie” Gilchrist – Petitioner ================================================================ i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should this Court resolve the split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals regarding whether, how, and under what circumstances Daubert must be satisfied for a class to be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when challenged expert testimony is at issue, particularly in light of this Court leaving the is- sues open in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1048-49 (2016)? 2. Do this Court’s rulings in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620, 626 (1997), and Com- cast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432-33 (2013), require the District Court, before approving the NFL head trauma settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to have assessed the disputed scientific propositions justifying the settlement under the Daubert standard, given the existence of (a) material disputes about the credibility of those scientific propositions, (b) unrequited requests for adversarial discovery and evidentiary hearings, as well as the fact that (c) the “individual stakes are high and disparities among class members great,” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 626? 3. Is it fundamentally wrong and an abdication of fiduciary duties to absent class members under Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for the lower courts to have approved the NFL’s head trauma class action set- tlement where there was no adversarial discovery on, and no definitive assessments about, the disputed “sci- entific” propositions regarding head trauma that were the basis for vastly disparate relief to class members along with a comprehensive release of claims? ii LIST OF PARTIES Kevin Turner, Appellee-Plaintiff Shawn Wooden, Appellee-Plaintiff Paul Raymond Turner, Appellee-Plaintiff National Football League, Appellee-Defendant NFL Properties, Appellee-Defendant Amicus Appellant Public Citizen Inc. Amicus Curiae Brain Injury Association of America Craig Heimburger; Dawn Heimburger, Appellants- Objectors Cleo Miller; Judson Flint; Elmer Underwood; Vincent Clark, Sr.; Ken Jones; Fred Smerlas; Jim Rourke; Lou Piccone; James David Wilkins, II, Appellants- Objectors Curtis L. Anderson, Appellant-Objector Darren R. Carrington, Appellant-Objector Raymond Armstrong; Nathaniel Newton, Jr.; Larry Brown; Kenneth Davis; Michael McGruder; Clifton L. Odom; George Teague; Drew Coleman; Dennis DeVaughn; Alvin Harper; Ernest Jones; Michael Kiselak; Jeremy Loyd; Gary Wayne Lewis; Lorenzo Lynch; Hurles Scales, Jr.; Gregory Evans; David Mims; Evan Ogelsby; Phillip E. Epps; Charles L. Haley, Sr.; Kevin Rey Smith; Darryl Gerard Lewis; Curtis Bernard Wilson; Kelvin Mack Edwards, Sr.; Dwayne Levels; Solomon Page; Tim McKyer; Larry Barnes; James Garth Jax; William B. Duff; Mary Hughes; Barbara Scheer, Appellants-Objectors Liyongo Patrise Alexander; Charlie Anderson; Charles E. Arbuckle; Cassandra Bailey, as Representative of the Estate of Johnny Bailey; iii LIST OF PARTIES – Continued Ben Bronson; Curtis Ceaser, Jr.; Larry Centers; Darrell Colbert; Harry Colon; Christopher Crooms; Jerry W. Davis; Tim Denton; Michael Dumas; Corris Ervin; Doak Field; Baldwin Malcolm Frank; Derrick Frazier; Murray E. Garrett; Clyde P. Glosson; Roderick W. Harris; Wilmer K. Hicks, Jr.; Patrick Jackson; Gary Jones; Ryan McCoy; Jerry James Moses, Jr.; Anthony E. Newsom; Rance Olison; John Owens; Robert Pollard; Derrick Pope; Glenell Sanders; Thomas Sanders; Dwight A. Scales; Todd Scott; Frankie Smith; Jermaine Smith; Tyrone Smith; James A. Young, Sr., Appellants-Objectors Scott Gilchrist, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Carlton Chester “Cookie” Gilchrist, Appellant-Objector Jimmie H. Jones; Ricky Ray; Jesse Solomon, Appellants-Objectors Andrew Stewart, Appellant-Objector Willie T. Taylor, Appellant-Objector Alan Faneca; Roderick “Rock” Cartwright; Jeff Rohrer; Sean Considine, Appellants-Objectors James Mayberry, Appellant-Objector iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED .................................. i LIST OF PARTIES ................................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................ iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... vii OPINIONS BELOW ............................................... 1 JURISDICTION ..................................................... 1 RULE INVOLVED .................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................. 8 A. The NFL Justified Its Head Trauma In- jury Class Action Settlement as Being “Science-Driven,” Yet there Was No Un- derlying Adversarial Discovery Nor Any Daubert Inquiries into or Findings Re- garding the Disputed Scientific Issues ..... 8 B. The District Court Used the Uncertainty of the So-Called State of the “Science” as a Basis for Approving the Settlement, While Simultaneously Shunning Daubert and Ad- versarial Discovery on Disputed Scientific Issues ......................................................... 9 C. Petitioner Gilchrist Objected to the Settle- ment on Behalf of the Estate of His Late Father, “Cookie” Gilchrist, Who Pioneered the Advocacy at Issue ................................ 11 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page D. Petitioner Relied on this Court’s Rulings in Amchem, Comcast and Daubert, as Well as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals Prior Application of the Case Law in Its Blood Reagents Opinion ............................ 12 E. The Third Circuit Dismissed Petitioner’s Ob- jection While Deeming His Argument to Have Been Waived ..................................... 14 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 15 A. This Court Should Resolve the Split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals Regarding Whether, How, and Under What Circumstances Daubert Scrutiny Is Necessary for Class Certification under Rule 23 When Chal- lenged Expert Testimony Is at Issue ......... 15 B. Because the NFL’s Head Trauma Injury Class Action Settlement Was Certified Under a Less Stringent Standard than that Governing Economic Injury Class Ac- tions, Class Action Fairness, Justice, and Stability Going Forward Are Irreparably Damaged .................................................... 21 C. The Courts Below Abdicated Their Funda- mental Fiduciary Duties to Absent Class Members by Approving a “Science-Driven” Personal Injury Class Action Settlement in the Absence of Adversarial Discovery, Daubert Inquiries, and Definitive Assess- ments About the “Science” at Issue ........... 23 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 27 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page INDEX OF APPENDICES Opinion by United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ............................................. App. 1 Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ........... App. 94 Amended Final Order and Judgment by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ............................. App. 305 Clarification to Amended Final Order and Judg- ment by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ......... App. 317 Denial of Petition for Rehearing by United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ....... App. 319 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ........................................................... 12, 24, 27 Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 22 Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013) ................................................................. 12, 24 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) ............................................................... passim Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 20 In re: Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig., 783 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2015) ........................................ 12, 13, 20 In re: NFL Players Concussion Injury Litig., 307 F.R.D. 351 (E.D. Pa. 2016) ......................................... 1 In re: NFL Players Concussion Injury Litig., 821 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2016) ............................ 1, 15, 16, 23 In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee