The Supreme Court’s online docket indicates that the justices denied certiorari today in Allstate v. Jacobsen.
Related posts:
-
SCOTUS denies cert. in class action punitive damages case (Allstate v. Jacobsen)
-
Cert. petition on class action punitive damages distributed for May 2 conference (Allstate v. Jacobsen)
We previously reported on this pending cert. petition, which raises questions about due process constraints on the award of punitive damages in state court class action proceedings. The Supreme Court’s online docket now indicates that the petition will be considered during the Court’s May 2 conference.
-
DRI amicus brief challenges constitutionality of Montana Supreme Court opinion allowing classwide adjudication of punitive damages (Allstate v. Jacobsen)
Our firm has filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of DRI, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the Montana Supreme Court violated Allstate’s due process rights in a class action punitive damages case.
This lawsuit began when Robert Jacobsen sued to challenge Allstate’s claims adjustment practices in Montana. The trial court certified the case as a class action and approved a procedure calling for punitive damages to be awarded on a classwide basis. The Montana Supreme Court determined that the trial court’s procedure violated due process because it would permit the award of punitive damages to class members who may not have suffered any actual harm from the challenged claims-handling procedures.
Unfortunately, the Montana Supreme Court “fixed” that problem in a way that still violates due process. The court authorized the trial court to determine entitlement to punitive damages on a classwide basis, followed by individual trials to determine the amount of compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded to each class member.
Our brief argues that the revised procedure still runs afoul of the Due Process Clause because entitlement to punitive damages cannot be decided on a classwide basis when the defendant engaged in different conduct towards each class member. An individualized assessment of the defendant’s conduct towards each particular plaintiff is required.
Other aspects of the Montana Supreme Court’s opinion raise serious due process concerns, and as a result the case has attracted a lot of attention from defense-oriented interest groups. At least five different amici have filed briefs supporting Allstate’s petition for review. There may still be others that haven’t yet shown up on the docket.
See additional coverage on Overlawyered and Legal NewsLine.
-
Supreme Court denies Novartis cert. petition
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Novartis v. Fussman. Novartis’s petition asked the court to decide whether federal law preempts punitive damages claims against drug manufacturers who have satisfied FDA approval and labeling requirements. The court requested a response to the petition, but ultimately decided not to take up the case.
The court’s order list is here. Law 360 has coverage here (subscription required).
Related posts:
-
Novartis cert. petition distributed for Sept. 30 conference
We previously reported on this pending cert. petition, which asks the Supreme Court to address the preemption of punitive damages claims against drug makers. The Supreme Court asked the plaintiff to respond to the petition, which certainly doesn’t mean it will be granted, but does make it worth watching. The online docket indicates that the Supreme Court will consider the petition at its September 30 conference.
Related posts:
-
Cert. petition asks Supreme Court to address preemption of punitive damages claims against drug makers (Novartis v. Fussman)
Does federal law preempt punitive damages claims against drug manufacturers who have satisfied FDA approval and labeling requirements? That is the first question raised in this cert. petition filed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Fussman.
The plaintiff brought suit in federal district court, asserting a failure-to-warn claim under North Carolina law. The plaintiff claimed Novartis failed to adequately warn of risks associated with the cancer drugs Aredia and Zometa. A jury awarded $287,000 in compensatory damages and $12.6 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $1.3 million under a North Carolina statute that caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages.
Novartis appealed to the Fourth Circuit, arguing that federal law bars punitive damages in state law failure to warn cases against drug manufacturers who have complied with all FDA requirements. The Fourth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the punitive damages award in an unpublished opinion.
Novartis filed a petition for certiorari and the plaintiff waived his right to file a response. But the Supreme Court, after considering the petition, requested a response from the plaintiff. Yesterday, the Washington Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the petition. See their press release here.
To track the status of this petition, you can view the Supreme Court’s online docket here.
-
Icicle Seafoods: cert. denied
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the petition for certiorari in Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen. See page 16 of today’s order list. Back in late June, there were some signs the Court might be interested in this petition, when Justice Kennedy issued a stay order and the Supreme Court requested a response to the petition. But it turns out that we’ll all have to wait for the Supreme Court’s next foray into punitive damages.
Related posts:
No grant of certiorari in Icicle Seafoods today
SCOTUS conferencing on Icicle Seafoods today
SCOTUS scheduled to rule on Icicle Seafoods cert. petition on September 24
Justice Kennedy issues stay in Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen
Cert. petition raises punitive damages issues (Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen)
-
No grant of certiorari in Icicle Seafoods today
Icicle Seafoods was not on the Supreme Court’s order list today. That means the Supreme Court did not grant certiorari in that case today, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the petition for certiorari was denied. The petition could be re-listed for another conference. We should find out on Monday, when the Supreme Court issues its order listing all the petitions that were denied in today’s conference.
Related posts:
SCOTUS conferencing on Icicle Seafoods today
SCOTUS scheduled to rule on Icicle Seafoods cert. petition on September 24
Justice Kennedy issues stay in Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen
Cert. petition raises punitive damages issues (Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen)
-
SCOTUS conferencing on Icicle Seafoods today
The Supreme Court of the United States is meeting today to decide which cert. petitions will be granted for the new Term, which formally begins next Monday. As previously reported, one of the cases up for consideration is Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen, in which the cert. petition raised the following issues:
1. Whether, in determining the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages for purposes of applying federal limits on punitive damages, court awarded attorney’s fees are properly included as compensatory damages.
2. Whether, and to what extent, punitive damages in maritime cases may exceed the 1:1 ratio between compensatory and punitive damages applied by the Court’s Exxon decision.
At 9:30 tomorrow morning, the court will release its list of the petitions granted in today’s conference.
Related posts:
SCOTUS scheduled to rule on Icicle Seafoods cert. petition on September 24
Justice Kennedy issues stay in Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen
Cert. petition raises punitive damages issues (Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen)
-
SCOTUS scheduled to rule on Icicle Seafoods cert. petition on September 24
For those of you tracking the status of the Icicle Seafoods cert. petition, the Supreme Court’s online docket indicates the petition has been distributed for the September 24 conference.
Related posts:
Justice Kennedy issues stay in Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen
Cert. petition raises punitive damages issues (Icicle Seafoods v. Clausen)