Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22807
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Thorogood sued Sears for alleged deceptive advertising that Kenmore dryers have an entirely stainless steel drum; class actions were certified then decertified for lack of common issues.
- A nearly identical California suit (Murray v. Sears) was filed by the same attorney and later challenged as barred by collateral estoppel.
- Sears sought an injunction under the All Writs Act to prevent copycat state and federal class actions contending they would harass and undermine court orders.
- The California district court allowed discovery to proceed, treating Murray as potentially distinct and not barred by collateral estoppel.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, reversing the district court, holding collateral estoppel did not provide adequate relief by itself and issuing an injunction scope addressing class-action harassment and related conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether All Writs Act injunction is proper relief. | Sears argues it is needed to prevent harassment and circumvent misapplied collateral estoppel. | Sears contends collateral estoppel would provide adequate relief and an injunction is unnecessary. | Yes; All Writs Act injunction proper to prevent harassment and round out collateral estoppel relief. |
| Whether collateral estoppel alone suffices to stop Murray actions. | Thorogood's position relies on collateral estoppel to bar subsequent suits. | Collateral estoppel alone is insufficient to prevent repeated copycat actions and discovery burdens. | No; collateral estoppel alone does not provide adequate relief in this context. |
| Scope of injunction against class actions and counsel. | Thorogood class counsel should be enjoined from pursuing indistinguishable nationwide class actions. | Injunction should be narrowly tailored to deter parallel copycat actions while respecting non-identical claims. | Enjoin the Thorogood/Murray class members and their lawyers from filing indistinguishable nationwide class actions; tailor scope to avoid overreach. |
| Whether the district court erred by allowing discovery in Murray after decertification. | Discovery should be barred or strictly limited given collateral estoppel concerns. | Discovery may proceed to test whether common issues justify class treatment or further defenses. | District court erred by relaxing collateral estoppel; discovery proceeded at cost to Sears and is subject to injunction. |
| Application of Anti-Injunction Act and cross-jurisdictional scope. | Injunction should extend broadly to deter copycat suits in all forums; Smith v. Bayer pending may affect scope. | Injunction must comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2283 and be compatible with Smith v. Bayer; scope must be carefully limited. | Injunction should apply to state and federal actions, with caveats for Anti-Injunction Act limits and potential Smith v. Bayer implications. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1977) (All Writs Act power extends to parties who obstruct judicial proceedings.)
- In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Products Liability Litigation, 333 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (injunctions under All Writs Act to prevent relitigation and collateral attacks in class actions.)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (class action representative preclusion and nonparty binding concepts.)
- Saylor v. Lindsley, 456 F.2d 896 (2d Cir. 1972) (class members' control and supervision concerns; representative litigation dynamics.)
- Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp., 552 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1977) (injunctions against harassment of litigation and related considerations.)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales Practice Litigation, 261 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2001) (class action governance and settlement dynamics.)
- In re Baycol Products Litigation, 593 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2010) (collateral estoppel and related federal-state preclusion issues.)