Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corp. International
695 F.3d 330
5th Cir.2012Background
- FCA and eleven Consumer Appellants sue Batesville, Hillenbrand, SCI, Alderwoods, and Stewart for alleged Sherman Act §1 and §2 conspiracies to foreclose independent casket discounters and restrain price competition.
- Plaintiffs claim a nationwide antitrust scheme including group boycott, price coordination, and sham discounting to keep caskets expensive.
- District court denied class certification; Stewart settled, and plaintiffs later moved to dismiss remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed the remaining claims as moot or without subject-matter jurisdiction after Stewart’s settlement, prompting appellate review.
- Appellants seek, among other relief, mandatory attorneys’ fees and costs under § 4 of the Clayton Act if antitrust liability is established against the non-settling defendants.
- The court address standing to pursue damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief, as well as class certification under Rule 23.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to pursue § 4 damages and fees | Consumer Appellants have standing to seek fees even if Stewart settlement moots damages against others. | Settlement with Stewart moots further damages/fees against remaining defendants; no standing to pursue fees. | Consumer Appellants have standing to seek costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees from remaining defendants. |
| Injunctive relief standing | Consumer Appellants seek injunctive relief to prevent ongoing antitrust harm. | There is no real and immediate threat of future injury to the named consumers or FCA. | Consumer Appellants lack standing to pursue injunctive relief. |
| Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority | The case presents common antitrust questions suitable for class treatment on a nationwide scale. | Markets and conspiracies are too localized; individualized issues predominate; class would be superior to other methods only if common issues prevail. | District court did not err in denying certification for lack of predominance and superiority. |
| National market/conspiracy requirement at class stage | Plaintiffs need not prove nationwide market or conspiracy at class certification. | Proving national market and conspiracy is necessary to support class-wide treatment. | Court required and found lack of proof of a national market and nationwide conspiracy; class certification denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sciambra v. Graham News (Sciambra II), 892 F.2d 411 (5th Cir.1990) (standing to recover costs/fees unaffected by settlement; fees mandatory under §4)
- Sciambra v. Graham News (Sciambra I), 841 F.2d 651 (5th Cir.1988) (prior related holding on fee entitlement)
- Gulfstream I, 995 F.2d 414 (3d Cir.1993) (crediting policy of fee recovery to encourage private enforcement)
- Gulfstream II, 995 F.2d 425 (3d Cir.1993) (continued discussion of attorney’s fees in settlements)
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (attorney’s fees cannot create standing where no live claim exists)
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (standing requires an injury in fact; quis tam suam cannot confer standing)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standing and mootness; fees cannot confer standing where no case or controversy exists)
- Halliburton Co. v. Halliburton, 131 S. Ct. 2183 (2011) (rigorous Rule 23 analysis may overlap with merits in class certification)
- U.S. Football League v. National Football League, 887 F.2d 408 (2d Cir.1989) (fee shifting and public policy favoring private antitrust enforcement)