In the Supreme Court of the United States.

ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., ABM ONSITE SERVICES-WEST, INC., ABM SERVICES, INC., ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES-NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., and ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioners,

v.

MARLEY CASTRO and LUCIA MARMOLEJO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL AND ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

MARY-CHRISTINE SUNGAILA

Counsel of Record

CHRISTINA CROZIER

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

600 Anton Blvd., Suite 700

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

(949) 202-3062

MC.Sungaila@haynesboone.com

Christina.Crozier@haynesboone.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

International Association of Defense Counsel

MARTIN S. KAUFMAN

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

2039 Palmer Avenue

Larchmont, NY 10538

(914) 834-3322

mskaufman@atlanticlegal. org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Atlantic Legal Foundation

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. PAGA claims are class actions in disguise, but without the procedural protections of Rule 23 II. PAGA claims have become increasingly popular, in part because of their lack of representative action procedural safeguards III. CAFA is designed to cover representative litigation like PAGA actions IV. The Second, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have created a CAFA loophole, which encourages the proliferation of representative actions with no procedural safeguards CONCLUSION CASES Addison Automatics, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2013) Arias v. Superior Court, 209 P.3d 923 (Cal. 2009) AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) Baumann u. Chase Inv. Servs. Corp., 747 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) Brown v. Mort. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 738 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2013) Erie Ins. Exch. v. Erie Indemnity Co., 722 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2013) Iskanian u. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014) McKinney v. Bd. of Trustees of Mayland Cmty. Coll., 955 F.2d 924 (4th Cir. 1992) Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Kentucky, 704 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2013) Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015) Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., PA. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2011) STATUTES AND RULES 28 U.S.C. [section] 1332 28 U.S.C. [section] 1332(d)(1)(B) CAL. LAB. CODE [section] 2699 CAL. LAB. CODE [section] 2699(A) CAL. LAB. CODE [section] 2699(F)(2) CAL. LAB. CODE [section] 2699(G)(1) FED. R. CIV. P. 23 FED. R. CIV. P. 23(A) SECONDARY SOURCES Matthew J. Goodman, The Private Attorney General Act: How to Manage the Unmanageable, 56 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 413 (2016) Judiciary Committee Report on Class Action Fairness Act, S. Rep. No. 109-14 (2005) Cale Ottens, Nuisance Cases Ramp Up Before High Court Weighs In, LOS ANGELES BUSINESS JOURNAL, Nov. 10, 2014 iv Pub. L. No. 109-2, [section] 2(a)(2)(A) Pub. L. No. 109-2, [section] 2(a)(4) Laura Reathaford, PAGA Performance, LOS ANGELES LAWYER (June 2016) INTEREST OF THE AMICI 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 practices concentrate on the defense of civil lawsuits. The IADC is dedicated to the just and efficient administration of civil justice and 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 incurring unreasonable cost.

The IADC has a particular interest in the fair and efficient administration of class actions. The IADC has participated as amicus curiae in a number of class and representative actions, as well as Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) cases before this Court, including: The Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Dino Rikos, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-835; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. State of New Hampshire, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-933; Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-457; Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 14-1146; Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, U.S. Supreme Court Case...