On June 3, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert., vacated the opinion, and remanded for reconsideration in a third post-Comcast case: Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, no. 12-1067.
Butler is a consumer case in which the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's order denying class certification of a breach of warranty claim involving mold growth in front-load washing machines. Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 702 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 2012) (Posner, J.). My original post on the opinion is here.
This is the third case that I'm aware of in which the Supreme Court directed reconsideration in light of Comcast. The other two cases are Whirlpool Corp. v. Glazer, no. 12-322 (also involving front-load washers; see this blog post), and RBS Citizens, N.A. v. Ross, no. 12-165 (involving unpaid overtime wages; see this blog post).
It will be interesting to see what the Sixth and Seventh Circuits do in these cases on remand.
In the meantime, it is now June, which means that the Supreme Court will soon be handing down its opinions in the rest of the cases argued this Term. I'm following these cases, among others:
- Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, No. 12-135 (involving class arbitration; argued 03/25/13)
- American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12-133 (involving class arbitration; argued 02/27/13)
In another development of interest, on May 28, 2013, the Supreme Court granted cert. in another case involving CAFA, Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., no. 12-0136. This is the question presented according to the cert. petition:
Whether a state's parens patriae action is removable as a "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act when the state is the sole plaintiff, the claims arise under state law, and the state attorney general possesses statutory and common-law authority to assert all claims in the complaint.
The case arose out of the LCDs price-fixing litigation. The Fifth Circuit reversed the remand order, finding the public prosecutor action removable under CAFA. Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 701 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2012).