The US Supreme Court rules that a state attorney general asserting state law claims for injuries incurred by its citizens is not required to be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (AU Optronics)

High Court Rejects Removal of Mississippi Antitrust Suit as Mass Action under Class Action Fairness Act* A price fixing action filed by the State of Mississippi as the sole named plaintiff was not a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), even though the state sought restitution for injuries suffered by its citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court decided last week in a unanimous decision, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The Court reversed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (701 F. 3d 796, 2012-2 Trade Cases ¶78,150). The High Court concluded that the case should have been remanded to state court (State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., Dkt. 12-1036). The decision provides reassurance to state attorneys general that they can pursue state court

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Wolters Kluwer (Riverwoods)

Quotation

Jeffrey May, The US Supreme Court rules that a state attorney general asserting state law claims for injuries incurred by its citizens is not required to be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (AU Optronics), 14 January 2014, e-Competitions January 2014, Art. N° 62575

Visites 137

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues