Illinois v. AU OPTRONICS CORP.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61561
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Plaintiff is the State of Illinois suing AU Optronics Corp. and others under the Illinois Antitrust Act for overcharges on LCD panels (1998–2006).
- Defendants removed the case to federal court under CAFA arguing minimal diversity and class/mass action removability.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, contesting CAFA jurisdiction and the real-party-in-interest analysis.
- Court analyzes whether the State is a real party in interest, whether the action is a CAFA-class action, and whether it qualifies as a mass action.
- Court concludes the State is a real party in interest with a quasi-sovereign interest, CAFA does not apply, and remands to state court.
- Case remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA minimal diversity exists here. | State is a real party in interest with quasi-sovereign interest; unnamed residents not necessary. | State is nominal; unnamed residents are real parties in interest for damages. | No CAFA minimal diversity; State is real party in interest; diversity not satisfied. |
| Whether the action is a CAFA 'class action.' | Parens patriae action under IAA is not a CAFA class action. | IAA action resembles a class action via representation of private interests. | Not a class action under CAFA; statutorily authorized parens patriae action, not Rule 23 class action. |
| Whether the action is a CAFA 'mass action.' | Mass action provisions apply to 100+ plaintiffs with common questions. | Could aggregate unnamed plaintiffs to meet mass-action numerosity. | Not a mass action; real-party-in-interest status and public-interest framing foreclose mass-action treatment. |
| Whether the State is the real party in interest for CAFA purposes. | State has substantial quasi-sovereign interest in injunctive relief and damages for residents. | Damages claims belong to private residents; State cannot anchor CAFA diversity. | State is the real party in interest; CAFA minimal diversity not met; remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarro Sav. Ass'n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458 (1980) (real party in interest requires substantial stake in controversy)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.2005) (burden on removal, procedural posture governed by CAFA rules)
- Anderson v. Bayer Corp., 610 F.3d 390 (7th Cir.2010) (state as master of its complaint; CAFA considerations constrained by state’s chosen forum)
- SDS West Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (examines state quasi-sovereign interest and real-party-in-interest approach in parens patriae actions)
- CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. CDW Computer Centers, Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2011) (parens patriae action not a class action under CAFA; state acts on behalf of public interest)