Supreme Court of the United States
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 01-896 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., Petitioners, v. JOHN B. MCCAULEY et al., Respondents. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit BRIEF OF THE PRODUCT LIABILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS HUGH F. YOUNG, JR. THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. PRODUCT LIABILITY Counsel of Record ADVISORY COUNCIL, INC. THOMAS H. DUPREE, JR. 1850 Centennial Park Drive GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Suite 510 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Reston, VA 20191 Washington, DC 20036 (703) 264-5300 (202) 955-8500 Of Counsel Counsel for Amicus Curiae QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a class-action lawsuit that seeks programmatic injunctive relief on behalf of a putative nationwide class may be heard in federal court, when the parties are completely di- verse and the relief sought by the plaintiffs would cost the de- fendants more than $75,000. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED....................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............................................. iii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .....................................1 STATEMENT........................................................................2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...........................................2 ARGUMENT.........................................................................3 I. THIS TYPE OF CLASS ACTION IS THE PARADIGMATIC DIVERSITY CASE...................3 II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES THAT BAR STATE COURTS FROM DICTATING NATIONAL POLICY SUPPORT RECOGNITION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION ........................................................9 III. FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN CLASS ACTIONS THAT SEEK NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS IS SENSIBLE POLICY................15 CONCLUSION....................................................................19 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court, 90 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).......................................6 Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 746 N.E.2d 1242 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)....................................10 Bacon v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 205 F.R.D. 466 (S.D. Ohio 2001) ....................................6 Barrow S.S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U.S. 100 (1898)......................4 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Bolger, 2 F.3d 1304 (3d Cir. 1993)...............................................................................13 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) ...............................................3, 9, 12 Bonaparte v. Tax Court, 104 U.S. 592 (1881).......................8 Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 (1986)...................................9 Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Taco Bell Corp., 184 F.R.D. 354 (D. Colo. 1999)............................6 Dalton v. Ford Motor Co., No. Civ.A 00C-09- 155WCC, 2002 WL 338081 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2002).................................................................11 Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982)...........................8 Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249 (1946) ................................8 Healy v. The Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324 (1989) ..............3, 8 In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Products Liability Litigation, Nos. 02-1437, 02-1438 & 02-1439, 2002 WL 831990 (7th Cir. May 2, 2002)...............................................................................12 iv In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1995)................................................................11 In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig., 192 F.R.D. 68 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) .......................................6 Kasky v. Nike, Inc., No. S087859, 2002 WL 827173 (Cal. May 2, 2002) ..............................................7 Lucero v. Detroit Pub. Schs., 160 F. Supp. 2d 767 (E.D. Mich. 2001) ............................................................6 Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 834 F.2d 677 (7th Cir. 1987).........................13 O’Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc., 197 F.R.D. 404 (C.D. Cal. 2000) .....................................5 Popovich v. McDonald’s Corp., 189 F. Supp. 2d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2002)..........................................................6 Ridder Bros. Inc. v. Blethen, 142 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1944)..................................................................6 Saint Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) .........................................................5 Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969)...................................7 Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2000)..................................................................5 Constitutional Provisions U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2..........................................................4 Statutes 1 Stat. 78.................................................................................4 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).......................................................passim 28 U.S.C. § 1407..............................................................3, 14 CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq. .............................7 v Rules FED. R. CIV. P. 23.................................................................12 FED. R. CIV. P. 65.................................................................12 FED. R. CIV. P. 82...................................................................7 Other Authorities H.R. Rep. No. 85-1706 (1958)...............................................4 H.R. Rep. No. 107-370 (2002).............................................15 S. Rep. No. 85-1830 (1958) ...................................................4 S. Rep. No. 106-420 (2000) ...........................................11, 14 John H. Beisner and Jessica Davidson Miller, They’re Making a Federal Case Out Of It . In State Court, 25 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 143 (2001) ................................................................14, 15 Deborah R. Hensler, et al., Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain (1999) ....................................................................15 Don Oldenburg, The Web’s Class-Action Clearinghouse, WASH. POST, April 24, 2002.................14 Marsha J. Rabiteau, Abusive Class Actions: An Expanding Growth Industry, National Legal Center for the Public Interest (2001)..............................15 Matthew J. Wald, Suit Against Auto Insurer Could Affect Nearly All Drivers, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 27, 1998.................................................................10 Memorandum to Advisory Comm. on Civil Rules from Judge Lee Rosenthal, Prof. Edward H. Cooper, and Prof. Richard Marcus (April 10, 2001)...............................................................................14 BRIEF OF THE PRODUCT LIABILITY ADVISORY COUNCIL AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (PLAC) is a non-profit association with 122 corporate members repre- senting a broad cross-section of American and international product manufacturers. These companies seek to contribute to the improvement and reform of law in the United States and elsewhere, with emphasis on the law governing the li- ability of manufacturers of products. PLAC’s perspective is derived from the experiences of a corporate membership that spans a diverse group of industries in various facets of the manufacturing sector. In addition, several hundred of the leading product liability defense attorneys in the country are sustaining (non-voting) members of PLAC. Since 1983 PLAC has filed over 575 briefs as amicus curiae in both state and federal courts, including this Court, presenting the broad perspective of product manufacturers seeking fairness and balance in the application and development of the law as it affects product liability. A list of PLAC’s corporate mem- bers is attached as the Appendix.1 PLAC’s members have a significant interest in the rules that govern class actions. Many of PLAC’s members are frequently named as defendants in class-action lawsuits that seek injunctive relief on a nationwide basis, as is the case here. Consequently, PLAC’s members have a substantial interest in whether and when federal jurisdiction may extend to such claims. 1 Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.3(a), letters of consent from all par- ties to the filing of this brief have been filed with the Clerk. Pursuant to Rule 37.6, PLAC states that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and that no person or entity other than PLAC, its members, or its counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. 2 STATEMENT This dispute arises from a decision by Ford Motor Com- pany and Citibank to terminate their nationwide credit card rebate program. The plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of a class of six million consumers throughout the Nation, seek an injunction reinstating the program on a national level. It is undisputed that the cost of reinstatement—for either a single class member or the entire class—would vastly exceed $75,000. The question presented is whether this cost satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement of the diversity stat- ute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This case belongs in federal court. Indeed, it is the para- digmatic diversity case because it is thoroughly interstate in nature—the parties are completely diverse and the plaintiffs seek programmatic injunctive relief that