4 F.4th 376
6th Cir.2021Background
- Objectors to the In re Flint Water Cases settlement petitioned for a writ of mandamus challenging alleged off‑the‑record substantive ex parte conferences from which their counsel were excluded.
- Central factual dispute: after Dr. Lawrence Reynolds objected to proposed bone‑lead testing, class counsel (Michael Pitt) moved to suspend the testing; petitioners allege the district court told Pitt—off the record—that he would have to withdraw as class counsel if he pursued the motion.
- Petitioners sought orders: stop off‑the‑record substantive meetings, require participants at two specific conferences to recount on the record what occurred, identify any other unrecorded substantive conferences since Feb. 26, 2021, and prohibit the court from dictating litigation strategy.
- The district court has not approved the global settlement; objections remain pending and a three‑day fairness hearing is scheduled where objectors will be heard.
- The Sixth Circuit denied the mandamus petition, explaining mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and petitioners failed to show lack of adequate alternative relief and a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | District/Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should bar off‑the‑record substantive ex parte meetings | Off‑the‑record conferences excluding objectors violated their rights and warrant immediate mandamus relief | Mandamus is extraordinary; the district court has not approved the settlement and ordinary appellate process is available | Denied—mandamus inappropriate when adequate alternative (appeal) exists |
| Whether nonnamed class members are entitled to attend pre‑judgment conferences as "parties" | Objectors claim party status entitles them to attend all proceedings; any excluded proceeding is ex parte | Nonnamed members are parties for some purposes but not necessarily for pre‑judgment conferences; inviting all would frustrate class efficiency | Denied—no clear, indisputable right shown; party‑status is context dependent |
| Whether the district court improperly directed class counsel’s litigation strategy (coerced withdrawal) | Court allegedly pressured Pitt to withdraw the bone‑testing motion, improperly dictating counsel’s positions | Court says Pitt could have sought a hearing and that there was no coercion; facts are disputed | Denied—factual disputes and lack of clear, indisputable entitlement defeat mandamus |
| Whether speculative future misconduct justifies mandamus now | Petitioners fear future ex‑parte meetings and continued judicial influence over settlement advocacy | Record shows no present intent to act improperly; objectors will have opportunities at fairness hearing and on appeal | Denied—threats speculative; remedy via fairness hearing and appeal suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (mandamus is a drastic, extraordinary remedy)
- Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (requirements for mandamus include lack of adequate alternative remedies and clear right to relief)
- United States v. Sineneng‑Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020) (describing principle of party presentation in our adversary system)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (nonnamed class members are parties for some purposes, such as appeal, but status is context dependent)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011) (unnamed class members are not automatically parties before class certification for all purposes)
- Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (court must ensure class counsel prioritize absent class members’ interests over settlement goals)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (class actions require procedures that preserve manageability and efficiency)
- Pearson v. Target Corp., 893 F.3d 980 (7th Cir. 2018) (nonnamed objectors can be parties for purposes of appeal and certain post‑judgment relief)