Class Actions - Class Actions-when lots of people feel the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Class Actions—when lots of people feel the need to sue someone Relevant Cases Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts – Personal Jurisdiction 1) Facts/Procedural History – focus: whether there’s TJ over the plaintiff class members . a) The court needs TJ over both and , but we usually ignore because starts suit. π Δ π π b) has a real interest in weeding out extra class s that don’t have minimum contacts. Δ π 2) The Court’s Reasoning – The Role of Consent in Jurisdictional Analysis a) The forum must have sufficient MCs with absent or must have consented. π π b) Reasonableness doesn’t apply – absent class members never need to do anything. c) The Court’s Reasoning – Failure to Opt Out Establishes Consent 3) Only available way to manifest consent in Shutts is by failing to opt-out. a) The court concludes that this choice was sufficient to manifest consent to TJ. b) In class actions, you don’t need affirmative consent, can utilize passive consent 4) WARNING: There’s a good argument that in addition to the choice to opt-out you also need adequate representation . a) Absent ’s have > protection than absent s. π Δ Allapattah v. Exxon Mobil 1) Facts: Named π 's brought suit against Exxon Mobile on behalf of a class. Diversity is met under both approaches. 2) Issue: Problem here is that some of the class members have claims under the AIC lim. a) Zahn says that original jurisdiction under § 1332 the aggregation rules require each member to have claim in excess of $75K. b) In using the whole complaint approach here, we have a problem with the AIC. 3) Ruling: Majority claims to apply a single claim approach, but they really apply a weird hybrid. As long as one met the AIC requirement, it can be handled under supplemental jurisdiction. You can’t do that with π diversity claims. So it’s weird. a) The majority’s hybrid view adopts single-claim AIC by one plaintiff against one defendant so long as you have one claim in excess of $75k, met AIC b) However, there can be no civil action over which the court has original jurisdiction unless the complete diversity requirement is met 4) Woolley thinks if the majority is going to go this route, why not just adopt the single-claim approach a) The critique of majority: Says they use a narrow view w/r/t diversity and broad view w/r/t AIC 5) Allapattah focuses on the rule 20 and 23 gap w/o making the point that the first part of 13367(b) closes the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 5

Class Actions - Class Actions-when lots of people feel the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online