Barr v. Galvin
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63013
D. Mass.2011Background
- Plaintiffs sought to place Barr and Root as Libertarian presidential/vice-presidential candidates on the 2008 Massachusetts ballot via a preliminary injunction.
- In 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor and entered judgment; defendant appealed to the First Circuit.
- The First Circuit in 2010 held Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 53, § 14 is not unconstitutionally vague but requires interpretive clarification by state courts and remanded for Pullman abstention and dismissal without prejudice.
- The Court abstained under Pullman and dismissed other claims without prejudice, pending state-court interpretive action.
- In March 2011, plaintiffs moved to certify a question to the Massachusetts SJC about § 14's interpretation; defendant opposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should certify a question to the SJC. | Barr et al. seek state-law interpretation by SJC per First Circuit guidance. | First Circuit order favors abstention and state-court interpretation; certification inappropriate. | Denied; abstention favored. |
| Whether certification is appropriate given Pullman abstention procedure. | State courts should interpret the statute in the first instance. | The First Circuit instructed abstention and state-court interpretation; certification unnecessary. | Denied; Pullman abstention applied. |
| Whether the First Circuit’s judgment requires dismissal with prejudice or absence of prejudice. | State-interpretable action should proceed; no prejudice to plaintiffs. | Abstention and non-preclusive posture maintain dismissal without prejudice. | Denied; matter remains subject to state-court interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hundley, 603 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2010) (certification standards; nonprecedential per curiam guidance)
- Real Estate Bar Ass'n For Mass., Inc. v. Nat'l Real Estate Info. Serv., 608 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2010) (certification discretionary; certification vs abstention)
- Horta v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2 (1st Cir. 1993) (courts may certify on remand; historical example)
- Muniz-Olivari v. Stiefel Labs., Inc., 496 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007) (certification considerations; factors on remand)
- Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1984) (certification as a tool; abstention alternatives)
- Turner v. City of Boston, 760 F.Supp.2d 208 (D. Mass. 2011) (discusses Pullman abstention and certification alternatives)