In The Supreme Court of the United States Exxon Mobil Corporation and Exxonmobil Oil Corporation, petitioners, v. State o New Hampshire, respondent.

PositionNo. 15-933 - Case overview

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The New Hampshire Supreme Court

BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

MARY-CHRISTINE SUNGAILA Counsel of Record MARTIN M. ELLISON HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 202-3000 mc.sungaila@haynesboone.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae International Association of Defense Counsel

COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. Parens Patriae Actions Have Evolved into the Functional Equivalent of Private Class Actions, But Without the Procedural and Substantive Safeguards of Class Actions.... II. This Court Should Make Clear That Parens Patriae Lawsuits and Private Class Actions Are Subject to the Same Standards, Including Those That Forbid a "Trial By Formula" CONCLUSION TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. u. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982)

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997)

Bonovich v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc., 310 N.E.2d 710 (111. App. Ct. 1974)

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Gault, 627 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. 2006)

Carrera v. Bayer Corp., Ill F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013)

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978)

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736 (2014)

Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015)

In re Parlamat Sec. Litig., 497 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Engle, 672 So. 2d 39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Satsky v. Paramount Commc'ns, Inc., 7 F.3d 1464 (10th Cir. 1993)

Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998)

Texas u. Am. Tobacco Co., 14 F. Supp. 2d 956 (E.D. Tex. 1997)

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011)

RULES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 37

Other Authorities

151 Cong. Rec. S1157 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2005)

H.R. Rep. 108-144 (2003)

John H. Beisner, Matthew Shors & Jessica Davidson Miller, Class Action "Cops": Public Servants or Private Entrepreneurs?, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1441 (2004)

Edward Brunet, Improving Class Action Efficiency by Expanded Use of Parens Patriae Suits and Intervention, 74 Tul. L. Rev. 1919 (2000)

Ilana T. Buschkin, The Viability of Class Action Lawsuits in a Globalized Economy--Permitting Foreign Claimants to be Members of Class Action Lawsuits in the U.S. Federal Courts, 90 Cornell L. Rev. 1563 (2007)

Susan Beth Farmer, More Lessons from the Laboratories: Cy Pres Distributions in Parens Patriae Antitrust Actions Brought by State Attorneys General, 68 Fordham L. Rev. 361 (1999)

Donald G. Gifford, Impersonating the Legislature: State Attorneys General and Parens Patriae Product Litigation, 49 B.C. L. Rev. 913 (2008)

Myriam Gilles & Gary Friedman, After Class: Aggregate Litigation in the Wake of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 79 U. Chi. L. Rev. 623 (2012)

Leah Godesky, State Attorneys General and Contingency Fee Arrangements: An Affront To The Neutrality Doctrine'?, 42 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 587 (Summer 2009)

Jay L. Himes, State Parens Patriae Authority: The Evolution of the State Attorney General's Authority (2004), available at http://apps. americanbar.org/antitrusi/at-committees/at-state/ pdf/publications/other-pubs/parens .pdf

Margaret H. Lemos, Aggregate Litigation Goes Public: Representative Suits by State Attorneys General, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 486 (2012)

R. Mulheron, The Class Action in Common Law Systems (Hart Publishing: Oxford 2005)..

Roald Nashi, Italy's Class Action Experiment, 43 Cornell Int'l L.J. 147 (2010)

Jack Ratliff, Parens Patriae: An Overview, 74 Tul. L. Rev. 1847 (2000)

Valerie Scott, Access to Justice and Choice of Law Issues in Multi-Jurisdictional Class Actions in Canada, 43 Ottawa L. R. 233 (20112013)

Susan M. Sharko, et al., Global Strategies and Techniques for Defending Class Action Trials: Defending the Global Company in Multinational Litigation, 77 Def. Couns. J. 295 (2010)

S.I. Strong, Cross-Border Collective Redress in the European Union: Constitutional Rights in the Face of the Brussels I Regulation, 45 Ariz. St. L.J. 233 (2013)

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE (1)

Amicus curiae International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) is an association of corporate and insurance attorneys from the United States and around the globe whose practice is concentrated on the defense of civil lawsuits. The IADC is dedicated to the just and efficient administration of civil justice and continual improvement of the civil justice system. The IADC supports a justice system in which plaintiffs are fairly compensated for genuine injuries, responsible defendants are held liable for appropriate damages, and non-responsible defendants are exonerated without unreasonable cost. These general concerns are implicated by the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision.

The IADC also has a particular interest in the fair and efficient administration of class actions, which are increasingly global in reach, and which share many important characteristics with parens patriae actions like the one here. Foreign plaintiffs often seek class action relief in federal court for alleged wrongs committed on foreign soil...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT