United States: Judge Gorsuch On Class Actions

Last Updated: February 16 2017
Article by Joseph H. Lang Jr. and D. Matthew Allen

On January 31, President Trump announced that Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals would be nominated for the United States Supreme Court. We took a look at those opinions authored by Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit that primarily addressed class action issues. These decisions confront a range of problems that arise in class action litigation. They also reveal his accessible, sometimes breezy, sometimes pointed, writing style. Four such decisions are explored below.

In Hammond v. Stamps.com, Inc., 844 F.3d 909 (10th Cir. 2016), the Tenth Circuit addressed the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) amount-in-controversy requirement. There, the plaintiff sued Stamps.com in state court, alleging that she believed that the company would charge her a monthly subscription fee only in those months where she used the service. In fact, she was charged a monthly fee. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of people she asserted were likewise deceived.

The plaintiff alleged that her proposed class included "hundreds or thousands of persons." She argued that she was entitled to $300 in statutory damages. She also argued that other members of the proposed class would likely be entitled to two monthly subscription charges ($15.99 x 2 or $31.98). She arrived at that number by estimating how long customers suffered the fees before calling to cancel. She also sought punitive damages on a classwide basis.

Stamps.com removed the case to federal court under CAFA, presenting uncontested declarations that 312,680 customers had called and canceled their subscriptions in the last four years. Using the damages the plaintiff alleged, Stamps.com calculated that the amount in controversy well exceeded the $5 million threshold. Notwithstanding that evidence, the district court concluded that the amount-in-controversy requirement was not met. Judge Gorsuch explained the district court's reasoning this way:

It held that Stamps.com failed to meet its burden of showing that over $5 million was "in controversy." The reason? The court faulted Stamps.com for failing to disaggregate from the total number of customer cancellations those customers who "felt duped" by Stamps.com's website disclosures. As the district court noted, customers could have cancelled their accounts because of "any of a myriad of ... reasons." Not everyone was deceived. Put more pointedly, without proof from Stamps.com establishing how many of its customers were actually deceived, the district court thought the company couldn't satisfy the $5 million "in controversy" requirement.

That reasoning did not stand. The Tenth Circuit vacated the remand order. It determined that the district court's "conclusion rests on a legal error about the meaning of a key statutory term." "In using the phrase 'in controversy' CAFA borrowed a term heavily encrusted with meaning." In explaining that disposition, Judge Gorsuch called on a variety of primary and secondary sources. One particularly colorful example is his reliance on Justice Frankfurter: "if a word is obviously transplanted from another legal source, whether the common law or other legislation, it brings the old soil with it." He also cited An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73, 78 (1789), Thomas E. Baker, The History and Tradition of the Amount in Controversy Requirement: A Proposal to "Up the Ante" in Diversity Jurisdiction, 102 F.R.D. 299, 302–03 (1984), and, particularly notably now, Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law 73 (2012).

While he acknowledged that a presumption of consistent usage may not always be determinative, he explained why it would in fact determine this case:

Of course, all these expositions about the meaning of the term "in controversy" have come in the course of interpreting earlier federal jurisdictional statutes and it is at least conceivable Congress could have meant something different in CAFA. Our presumption of consistent usage is just that, a presumption. But we cannot think of—and the parties do not even attempt to give us—any reason to suppose that in using the term "in controversy" Congress in CAFA meant anything at odds with our traditional understanding.

In BP America v. Oklahoma ex rel. Edmondson, 613 F.3d 1029 (10th Cir. 2010), the Attorney General of Oklahoma challenged the defendants' (referred to in the opinion collectively as "BP") alleged manipulation of propane gas prices. BP removed the lawsuit on the theory that it was a "mass action" under CAFA. The district court disagreed, remanded, and sent a remand order to the state court. In this Tenth Circuit decision, Judge Gorsuch addressed the threshold issues whether the court could and should grant leave to appeal.

The court observed that "§ 1453(c)(1) would seem to put to rest any reasonable doubt as to our jurisdiction to consider BP's application." But then Judge Gorsuch goes on to explain the Attorney General's jurisdictional argument as follows:

With this conclusion, however, Attorney General Edmondson begs to differ. To be sure, he acknowledges that § 1453(c)(1) exempts CAFA cases from § 1447(d) and its concomitant bar against appellate review of remand orders. But CAFA doesn't do anything to diminish the force of § 1447(c), and that subsection, he says, is sufficient unto itself to extinguish our jurisdiction in this case. Subsection 1447(c) provides that, "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In such cases, "[a] certified copy of the order of remand shall be mailed by the clerk to the clerk of the State court," and "[t]he State court may thereupon proceed with such case." Id. It is undisputed here that the clerk of the federal court mailed the remand order to the clerk of the state court several days before BP filed its petition with us. And that action, Attorney General Edmondson urges, divested all federal courts—including our court—of jurisdiction to consider any issue in the case.

Not so. Judge Gorsuch rejected this argument, concluding that § 1447(c) does not "have the purchase that the Attorney General purports." In doing so, he rejected the Attorney General's reading of the case law: "Finding no shelter in the language of the statute, Attorney General Edmondson seeks refuge in case law. But here, as well, his arguments miss their intended mark. All of the authority he cites simply holds that the transmission of the remand order from the federal district court clerk to the state court, as contemplated by § 1447(c), operates to divest federal district courts of further jurisdiction over the case."

Along the way, the opinion reveals this approach to statutory construction:

To operate as the Attorney General would have it, § 1453(c)(1) would have to read very differently than it does, providing instead that the court of appeals may accept an appeal if application is made within seven days and if the court accepts that application before the clerk of the district court sends the remand order to the state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). That second, italicized condition, however, appears nowhere in the statute, and we are not at liberty to take our editing pencils to what Congress has written.

The court then considered a list of factors earlier set forth by the First Circuit and decided that it should exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal.

In Shook v. Bd. of County Comm. of the County of El Paso, 543 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 2008), the Tenth Circuit visited for a second time a case in which the plaintiffs sought class certification. On the first appeal, it reversed the district court's denial of class certification. That earlier panel concluded that the district court should not have relied on the Prison Litigation Reform Act's jurisdictional limitations to the exclusion of the Rule 23 standards in denying certification. On remand, the district court again denied certification. This time around, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in an opinion written by Judge Gorsuch.

The opinion addressed many particular class certification issues. For instance, the question whether the district court should have sua sponte created subclasses was examined: "While the district court could have sua sponte suggested subclassing as a possible solution to Rule 23(b)(2) problems, the Supreme Court has indicated that courts do not bear any obligation to do so." Rather, the burden is on the party seeking certification to do so.

But the opinion is notable for some larger jurisprudential points it emphasized. First, Judge Gorsuch emphasized the meaning of abuse-of-discretion review:

In this case, we believe the district court's decision fell within the boundaries set out by Rule 23(b)(2), governing case law, and the facts as alleged. While we very well may have made a different decision had the issue been presented to us as an initial matter, and while other district courts perhaps could have chosen, or could choose, to certify similar classes, we cannot say the district court's assessment was beyond the pale.

. . . .

Without in any way commenting on the merits of the appeal in that matter, the fact that other courts might reach conclusions different from that reached by the district court in this case is not dispositive in our case. Our inquiry is limited to asking whether the district court's decision "exceeded the bounds of permissible choice," a standard that, as we have already emphasized, acknowledges the possibility that polar opposite decisions may both fall within the "range of possible outcomes the facts and law at issue can fairly support." And, as we have indicated, there is sufficient support in the Rule and applicable case law to indicate that the district court's decision in this case, while perhaps not the only tenable one, or one even we would ourselves have made, was permissible. (Internal citation omitted.)

Second, the court emphasized the appellate principle that alternative bases may support an affirmance. In a pointed passage, Judge Gorsuch observed that the panel was puzzled that the district court on remand again relied, in part, on the exact basis that had been identified as erroneous in the first appeal: "Finally, we confess that we are as surprised as plaintiffs that on remand the district court continued to rely as an alternative ground for denying class certification on 'the inability of the court to fashion the remedy requested, given the ... the jurisdictional limitations imposed by the [PLRA].'" The court again said this was erroneous.

Notwithstanding, the court expounded on its duty to look at legitimate alternative bases for affirming the denial of class certification:

As we have said before, "[w]hatever the particular result in any given case, the use of alternative dispositions generally benefits everyone; [it] relieves a pressing work load by resolving cases thoroughly once; the courts avoid successive, piecemeal appeals; and litigants are spared the protracted delays that result when a case drags on incrementally." Thus, no matter how erroneous one alternative disposition, we still must bring our dispassionate analysis to each alternative ruling made by the district court. (Internal citation omitted.)

Finally, in Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., 245 Fed. App'x 839 (10th Cir. 2007), we see Judge Gorsuch expressing some subtle wit, without disrespecting the litigant's somewhat creative arguments. In that case, one Mr. Karn objected to a proposed class settlement. The district court rejected that objection, finding that Mr. Karn lacked standing because he was not a member of the class.

"Mr. Karn followed his objection with a number of motions in the district court, asking, among other things, that the court charge the parties in the suit and their counsel with violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (illegal restraints of trade), that the court rule on the constitutionality of class action lawsuits writ large, and that the court allow Mr. Karn to file litigation documents by posting them on his website and announcing the posting by email to the court and other parties."

The Tenth Circuit first affirmed on the ground that "Mr. Karn fail[ed] to appeal the district court's second, independent ground for denying his objection—namely, its conclusion that Mr. Karn, standing or no standing, simply did not raise any valid objection." The Tenth Circuit also affirmed on the basis articulated by the district court: "[W]e affirm because we agree that Mr. Karn indeed lacked standing to object to the proposed settlement. Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides only that 'class member[s] may object to a proposed settlement.'"

In closing out the opinion, Judge Gorsuch gave a third reason for the Tenth Circuit's affirmance:

Third, and finally, we affirm the district court because Mr. Karn presents no evidence or relevant legal argument to support his contentions that such a denial of standing violates the Fifth Amendment. Instead of providing this court with case citations to support his appeal, Mr. Karn spends the bulk of his brief noting the inefficiencies and burdens of paper-based litigation and advocating the adoption of electronic filing systems. We do not doubt that technological innovation presents great opportunities for the judiciary. But we disagree with Mr. Karn that the current procedural requirements with which he must comply deprive him or others of any constitutional rights. (Internal citation omitted.)

As this brief survey illustrates, Judge Gorsuch's class action opinions reflect his well-known commitment to a textual construction of statutes and an incisive, pungent writing style. They do not reflect, however, an ideological bias either in favor or against class actions in general.

In re Pharmacy Benefit Manager Antitrust Litigation, No. 06-1782 (Jan. 18, 2017)

In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-CV-04115-WHO (Jan. 19, 2017)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions