State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corporation
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24096
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellants, LCD panel manufacturers and distributors, removed to federal court arguing CAFA jurisdiction as a class action or mass action.
- The State of Mississippi moved to remand; the district court remanded.
- The Fifth Circuit held removal proper, finding the suit is a mass action under CAFA.
- Court pierced pleadings to identify real parties in interest as >100 individuals plus the State.
- Real parties in interest include Mississippi consumers and the State; the suit involves both generalized and individual injuries.
- CAFA’s general public exception does not apply; case remanded for further proceedings in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Mississippi suit a CAFA class action? | Mississippi not a Rule 23 class action; no similar-state statutes; qualifies as mass action, not class action | Action not a class action under CAFA since state statutes not similar to Rule 23 | No; the suit is not a CAFA class action. |
| Does the suit qualify as CAFA mass action? | More than 100 claimants; relief involves private damages to consumers | State asserts quasi-sovereign interests; not 100+ real parties in interest | Yes; the suit is a CAFA mass action. |
| Who are the real parties in interest? | State and consumers both have rights under MCPA/MAA | State alone alleged damages; no private claimants involved | The real parties in interest include the State and individual Mississippi consumers. |
| Does CAFA’s general public exception apply? | Public restitution claims could align with general public exception | There are private claims; not all claims asserted for general public | No; general public exception does not apply. |
| Does parens patriae analysis affect CAFA removal here? | State acts with quasi-sovereign interests; restitution to private parties included | Parens patriae does not convert to a class action; still mass action | Parens patriae considerations do not defeat mass-action finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008) (pierce pleadings approach to real parties in interest; mass-action analysis)
- Snapp v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (Sup. Ct. 1982) (limits on parens patriae authority; sovereign interests)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (strict construction of removal statutes; comity concerns)
- West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2011) (parens patriae and removal considerations; mass-action implications)
- Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (case-as-whole approach to real-party-in-interest; CAFA mass-action interpretation)