Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.

Argued November 6, 2013
Decided January 14, 2014
Full case name Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.
Docket nos. 12-1036
Prior history Petitioners motion granted, US Dis. Ct.; District Court reversed by 5th Ckt. Ct.
Argument Oral argument
Holding
Under the Class Action Fairness Act, because Mississippi is the only named plaintiff, the suit does not qualify as a "mass action" – that is, a civil action "in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiff's claims involve common questions of law or fact."
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Kagan, Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer
Laws applied
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp. No. 12-1036, 571 U.S. 310 (2014) is a United States Supreme Court case. The court determined whether a class-action suit was properly removed to federal district court as a mass action under the Class Action Fairness Act.[1] The court unanimously determined (Justice Sotomayor delivering the court's opinion) that since the state of Mississippi was the sole plaintiff in the lawsuit, the case did not constitute a mass action for the purposes of the Act.[2]

The case turned on a question of statutory construction. The Act defined a mass action as 'any civil action ... in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact'. The State of Mississippi sought restitution from a liquid crystal display (LCD) manufacturer, including restitution for purchases of LCD products made by Mississippi citizens. The court held that the reference in the Act to '100 or more persons' referred to actual plaintiffs and not to any individuals (in this case, unnamed Mississippi citizens) who may have an interest in, or benefit from, the action.[2]

References

  1. ↑ "MISSISSIPPI v. AU OPTRONICS CORP. - LII / Legal Information Institute". Retrieved 2014-08-02.
  2. 1 2 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1036_0971.pdf


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, February 15, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.