Lg Display Company v. Lisa Madigan
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23036
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Illinois AG sued eight LCD panel manufacturers in Cook County Circuit Court for IAA violations, seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, treble damages, and parens patriae relief for residents.
- Defendants removed to federal court under CAFA; AG moved to remand contending CAFA requirements were not met; district court remanded.
- Defendants petitioned for permission to appeal the remand order, arguing the suit is a disguised class/mass action and novel CAFA issues are implicated.
- Issue presented: whether a parens patriae IAA suit can be treated as a class or mass action removable under CAFA, and whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over the remand order.
- The Seventh Circuit held the suit is not a class action or a mass action under CAFA, and declined to grant jurisdiction to review the remand order.
- The court emphasized restraint in removal, citing comity and the 'whole complaint' approach to determine the real party in interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA removability of parens patriae suit | AG contends parens patriae action may meet CAFA as disguised class/mass action. | Defendants contend the action fits CAFA as class/mass action and is removable. | Not removable; not a class or mass action under CAFA. |
| Real party in interest analysis | State is real party for enforcement and damages; damages claims by residents handled by state. | Illinois residents are the real parties in interest for damages via claim-by-claim analysis. | State is the real party in interest when considering the complaint as a whole; no claim-by-claim approach required. |
| Jurisdiction to review remand order | CAFA-related novel questions justify appellate review. | Remand orders in CAFA context are generally unreviewable; novel questions do not grant jurisdiction here. | Lacks jurisdiction to review the remand order; petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. West Virginia, 646 F.3d 163 (4th Cir. 2011) (parens patriae not removable as class action under CAFA)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Caldwell, 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008) (parens patriae not removable as class action; need for traditional requirements)
- Anderson v. Bayer Corp., 610 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2010) (CAFA remand rules; general non-reviewability of remand orders)
- Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Bezich, 610 F.3d 448 (7th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional review standards in CAFA contexts)
- Nuclear Engineering Co. v. Scott, 660 F.2d 241 (7th Cir. 1981) (real party in interest assessment based on proceeding's essential nature)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (removal statutes construed strictly; federalism/comity concerns)
- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002) (strict construction of removal statutes)
- Anderson v. Bayer Corp. (duplicate), 610 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2010) (see above)
- Koral v. Boeing Co., 628 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2011) (novel CAFA issues warranting petition grants in limited cases)