Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.
876 F. Supp. 2d 758
S.D. Miss.2012Background
- Mississippi Attorney General filed state court action alleging price fixing under MCPA and MAA against LCD panel manufacturers.
- The State sought injunctions, civil penalties, restitution, punitive damages, and other relief on behalf of the State, its citizens, and local governments.
- Defendants removed to federal court claiming CAFA jurisdiction and possible federal question under the Sherman Act.
- The case was transferred to MDL proceedings in California pending remand decision.
- The court grants remand and grants the defendants’ motion to strike portions of the State’s reply; concludes not a class action and is a mass action fall under the general public exception.
- The court remands the action to Mississippi state court and discusses potential MDL transfer considerations if remanded as a mass action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA provides federal jurisdiction here | Mississippi consumers and entities are real parties in interest; State lacks citizenship for diversity. | Nationwide nature and real-party-in-interest analysis support CAFA jurisdiction. | Not a CAFA class action; CAFA mass action analysis controlled; remand granted. |
| Whether the action falls under CAFA mass action or is excluded by the general public exception | Action seeks relief for general public in Mississippi; falls within general public exception. | Argues parens patriae is not general public and should be CAFA mass action. | Mass action; not removable; general public exception satisfied. Remanded. |
| Whether the suit raises a federal question under the Sherman Act | State antitrust claims are grounded in state law; not preempted by federal law. | Sherman Act complete preemption applies; preempts state remedies for interstate conduct. | No federal question preemption; no federal jurisdiction on preemption grounds. |
| Whether the State’s parens patriae posture controls the jurisdictional phase and real-party-in-interest analysis | State sues to protect quasi-sovereign interests of its residents; consumers and local governments are real parties in interest. | Court should treat as a representative action; challenges to CAFA jurisdiction. | Mississippi consumers and local governments are real parties in interest; State lacks citizenship but minimal diversity met; remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 422 (5th Cir. 2008) (parens patriae can involve real parties in interest for damages; CAFA mass action analysis used to define 100+ real parties in interest)
- Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 843 F. Supp. 2d 654 (E.D. La. 2012) (concluded CAFA class action definition did not apply where not filed under Rule 23 or analogous statute)
- Madigan v. Pfizer Inc., 665 F.3d 770 (4th Cir. 2012) (discusses parens patriae actions and CAFA applicability; not a class action under CAFA)
- Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011) (parens patriae actions; GA considerations under CAFA)
- McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2011) (examines parens patriae and CAFA interplay; supports distinctions from class actions)
- Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2011) (removal jurisdiction; use of evidence; CAFA considerations)