SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SJC NO. 10108 CRYSTAL SALVAS, et al., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS . WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Brief Of Amici Curiae New England Legal Foundation and Associated Industries of Massachusetts In Support Of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. NEW ENGLAND LEGAL FOUNDATION and ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF MASSACHUSETTS, By their attorneys, Ben Robbins BBO No. 559918 Martin J. Newhouse, President BBO No. 544755 Jo Ann Shotwell Kaplan, General Counsel BBO No. 459800 New England Legal Foundation 150 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111-2504 (617) 695-3660 April .25, 2008 Corporate Disclosure Statement Amicus curiae New England Legal Foundation ('INELF'') states, pursuant to Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 1:21, that it is a 26 U.S.C. § 501 (c) (3) nonprofit, public interest law firm, incorporated in Massachusetts in 1977, with its headquarters in Boston. NELF is supported by contributions from more than 130 corporations, law firms, foundations, and individuals, NELF's mission is to promote balanced economic growth in New , England, protect the free enterprise system, and defend economic rights. NELF does not issue stock or any other form of securities and does not have any parent corporation. NELF is governed by a self- perpetuating Board of Directors, the members of which serve solely in their personal capacities. Amicus curiae Associated Industries of Massachusetts ("A.I.M.") states, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:21, that it is a 26 U.S.C. § 501(c) (61, 90- year-old nonprofit association, incorporated in Massachusetts. A.I.M.'s mission is to promote the well-being of its members and their employees and the prosperity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by: improving the economic climate of Massachusetts; proactively advocating fair and equitable public policy; and providing relevant, reliable information and excellent services. A.I.M. does not issue stock or any other form of securities and does not have any parent corporation. A.I.M. is governed by a self- perpetuating Board of Directors, the members of which serve solely in their personal capacities. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..................... .i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE.....,....,,...*.............l STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ..........*..-...-*...3 I. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLASS ACTION REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23 IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT POTENTIAL ABUSE OF THE CLASS ACTION MECHANISM. ..4 11. THE DE MIXIMIS EXCEPTION TO CLASS-WIDE INJURY UNDER ASPINALL v. PHILLIP MORRIS COS. IS INAPPLICABLE IN THIS CASE ......................~8 A. The plaintiffs here, unlike the plaintiffs in Aspinall, have failed to show uniform, virtually class-wide injury ...........,...lo B. The de minimis exception should not apply to class actions under Rule 23 ........... .13 C. It is questionable whether the de minimis exception survives the actual injury requirement under Hershenow.........,...*.l8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE............... ...........-21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. ........................... -22 iii Table of Authorities Cases Amchem Prods. , Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997)............................ 15 Andrews v. Am. Tel. & Xel. Co., 95 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 1996) .................. 12 Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos'., 442 Mass. 381 (2004)....................... passim Benedict v. Altria Group, Inc., 241 F.R.D. 668 (D.Kan. 2007) ................... 17 Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc. , 181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999) .................... 5 Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 65 F.3d 823 (loth Cir, 1995) ................... 15 Boyd v. Becker, 627 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1993) ........... 20 Broussard v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc. , 155 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1998) ................... 15 Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979)........... 16 Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) ................................. 5 Davies v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc. , 2006 WL 1600067 (Wash.Super. May 26, 2006) ..... 17 Feitelberg v. Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 592 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) ........ 20 Fletcher v. Cape Cod Gas Co., 394 Mass. 595 (1985) .. 13 iv ........................................... _ Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. , 445 Mass. 802 (2006)....................... passim In re Baycol Prods. Litigation, 218 F.R.D. 197 (D. Minn. 2003) ................. 15 Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc. , 130 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 1997) .................. 15 McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co., 2008 WL 878627 (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2008) ....... 6, 17 Mulford v. Altria Group, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 615 (D.N.M. 2007) ................... 17 Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2006 WL 663004, (Or,Cir., Feb. 23, 2006) ....................... 17 Philip Morris USA Inc. v, Hines, 883 So.2d 292, (F1a.Dist.Ct.A~~.2004) ........................ 17 Polion v. Wal-Mart, 2006 WL 4472492, (Mass-Super. Nov. 7, 2006)) ................ passim Sw, Refining Co., Inc. v. Bernal, 22 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. 2000) ................... 7, 16 Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) ................................ 15 Statutes G. 1;. c. 93A .................................... passim G. L. c. 93A, § 9(2) ................................ 13 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................... 5 Mass. R. Civ. P. 23 ............................. passim Mass. R. Civ. P. 23(b) .......................... passim V Miscellaneous 1998 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) ........................... 6 Richard A. Nagareda, Aggregation And its Discontents: Class Settlement Pressure, Class-Wide Arbitration, and CAFA, 106 Colum. L.Rev. 1872 (2006)................... 5 Gary M. Kramer, No Class: Post-1991 Barriers to Rule 23 Certification of Across-The-Board Employment Discrimination Cases, 15 Lab. Law. 415 (2000)... 4 Thomas E. Willging et al. , An Empirical Analysis of Rule 23 to Address the Rulemaking Challenges, 71 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 74 (1996)........................ 4 vi ISSUE PRESENTED Amici will address the following issue set forth in this Court‘s January 11, 2008 announcement soliciting amicus briefs: In this reported case, at issue is the correctness of the Superior Court judge’s . decertification, as overbroad, [of] a plaintiff class of approximately 67,000 hourly employees, on whose behalf was alleged the employer’s improper credit for meal and rest breaks and improper compensation for time worked. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Amicus curiae New England Legal Foundation (”NELF”) is a nonprofit, public interest law firm, incorporated in Massachusetts in 1977 and headquartered in Boston. Its membership consists of corporations, law firms, individuals, and others who believe in NELF‘s mission of promoting balanced economic growth in New England, protecting the free enterprise system, and defending economic rights. NELF’s more than 139 members and supporters include a cross-section of large and small businesses and other organizations from a11 parts of the Commonwealth, New England, and the United States. Amicus curiae Associated Industries of Massachusetts (\\A.I,M.”)is a 90-year-old non-profit association with over 7,000 employer members doing business in the Commonwealth. A.I.M.‘s mission is to promote the well- being of its members and their employees, and the prosperity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by: improving the economic climate of Massachusetts; proactively advocating fair and equitable public policy; and providing relevant and reliable information and excellent services. class actions can increase greatly the costs and burdens of litigation on business defendants. NELF, A.I.M., and their respective members accordingly seek strict enforcement of Rule 23’s requirements and oppose the certification of class actions where, as here, the plaintiffs have failed to show class-wide injury. Certification of such a class would expose a business to the risk of protracted and costly litigation and a large settlement when it is doubtful that the plaintiffs could prove liability for a11 or even most of the putative class members. NELF and A.I.M. have regularly appeared as amici curiae in cases, such as this one, that raise issues of general concern for the business community in Massachusetts.’ Amici believe that this brief will 1 See, e.g., Scott v. NG U.S. 1, Inc., 450 Mass. 760 (2008); St. Fleur v. WPI Cable Sys./Mutron, 450 Mass. 345 (2008); Eigerrnan v. Putnam Inv., Inc., 450 Mass. 281 (2007) ; Allen v. Boston Redevelopment Auth. , 450 Mass. 2 provide an additional perspective that may assist the Court. Accordingly, amici have sought leave to file this brief.2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS NELF and A.I.M. hereby incorporate by reference the Statement of the Prior Proceedings and Statement of Facts contained in the Brief of the Defendant-Appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart). 242 (2007); Jepson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Ipswich, 450 Mass. 81 (2007); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rap0 & Jepsen Ins. Servs., Inc., 449 Mass. 609 (2007); Devine v. Town of Nantucket, 449 Mass. 499 (2007); Ciovanella v. Conservation Cornmln of Ashland, 447 Mass. 720 (2006); Central Steel Supply Co. v. Planning Bd. of Somerville, 447 Mass. 333 (2006); Humphrey v, Byron, 447 Mass. 322 (2006) ; Mscisz v. Kashner Davidson Sec. Corp. 446 Mass. 1008 (2006) ; Superadio Ltd. P'ship. v. Winstar Radio Prod., 446 Mass. 330 (2006) ; Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, 445 Mass. 790 (2006); Roberts v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Bostonl 445 Mass. 811 (2006); Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co,, 444 Mass. 34 (2005) ; Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc., 443 Mass. 110 (2004); Phelan v. May Dep't Stores Co., 443 Mass. 52 (2004); White v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc., 442 Mass. 64 (2004) ; Stonehill College v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 549 (2004) ; Morrison v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 441 Mass. 451 (2004) . 2 Neither Defendant-Appellee nor its counsel in this matter, nor any individual or entity aside from amici, has authored this brief in whole or in part or made any monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. 3 ARGUMENT I. STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLASS ACTION REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 23 IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT POTENTIAL ABUSE OF THE CLASS ACTION MECHANISM.