Austin Lewis

Reflection Memorandum

Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corporation

I. What major Constitutional provision or federal law is involved? What legal question is the U.S. Supreme Court addressing?

-The lower court arguments by Mississippi claimed that an economic pricing scheme orchestrated by AU Optronics, hurt and violated the citizens of Mississippi via the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and Mississippi Antitrust Act (MAA). The case then escalated to a question of federal law, particularly the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of 2005. Once the decision from the lower courts was appealed by AU Optronics (there were questions that were ambiguous and needed more interpretation, thus resulting in an appeal), it was granted and the case was then moved to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. The federal law in question was indeed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), as arguments on both sides had to do with whether or not the citizens hurt by the price fixing scheme were eligible for both “class action” and “mass action” lawsuits. The holdings from the Appellate court decision held that “1) suit did not qualify as a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); 2) suit did qualify as mass action under CAFA.” This is strange because in my opinion, based on basic research and references, I’ve come to the conclusion of the opposite. The suit did qualify as a class action and it did not qualify for a mass action. This is because a class action is simply a lawsuit brought by a large group of people experiencing the same legal distress who can all sue at once without different treatments needing to be made legally. A mass action however, according to attorney Scott L. Starr, mass torts (actions) include plaintiffs that are part of a large group AND are treated individually and have separate cases (http://www.starrausten.com/resources/what-is-the-difference-between-a-class-action-and-a-mass-tort-mass-action/).

II. Arguments of petitioner (the first party listed):a. Discuss the oral and written arguments presented by the petitioner. Evaluate

these arguments based on the law, the application of the facts to the law, the logic shown by the attorney’s arguments, and how well the attorney addressed the questions by the Court. Be sure to discuss which arguments you accept and which you reject and why.

-In Mr. Massey’s opening statement, he starts off with the fact that 46 states support Mississippi in this particular case based on the law. This is great to start off with, as it psychologically makes his argument seem more valid than it may be truly. But soon after this statement, he starts talking about how CAFA and mass action lawsuits are irrelevant to this case, which I don’t’ understand. Yes, Mississippi does not allow class action lawsuits to take place in the state, so that’s out of the legal question. It’s all about the mass action now. That’s what this Supreme Court case is about. How

could it be irrelevant? He then starts mentioning the fact that this is a “parens patriae” case, where the entire state in the plaintiff, and how these kinds of cases aren’t covered by CAFA. I’m not sure if he’s just admitting the facts against the state of Mississippi before he starts with the rest of his argument, but it doesn’t seem like it’s a good idea to say it all in the beginning when the judges are going to start bombarding him with questions. This whole case is based on whether or not this is classified as a mass action. If it’s not, the state has no case. Mr. Massey answered the judges’ question thoroughly and with expertise, but again, I’m not sure why he’s not making a case for the state as a mass action case in the beginning of his argument.

b. What arguments would you have made to the Supreme Court? What changes or improvements would you make to the legal arguments?

-I would have started out proclaiming that the case against AU Optronics involves more than 100 persons who have suffered from an intentional and negligent conspiracy. Although it doesn’t meet Mr. Starr (the attorney I stated in #1) as having multiple plaintiffs who are to be treated individually, it does meet the requirements under CAFA itself. “Under the terms of the statute, a mass action is defined as a civil action in which (1) monetary relief claims of (2) 100 or more persons (3) are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact and (4) include an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). It is mentioned in the summary of the appellate court’s statement that “it is undisputed that the present suit involves monetary relief claims….Therefore, the decisive question is whether the suit involves the claims of 100 or more persons.” Obviously, the state houses in excesses of 100 citizens. The controversy lies on whether or not the state has the right to sue on behalf of its citizens who were untraceably rigged by a price-setting scheme to increase prices, I believe. I would argue that it is justified, and that the monetary claims received would help the economy recover and for the citizens on Mississippi to benefit overall.

III. Arguments of the respondent (the second party listed): a. A. Discuss the oral and written arguments presented by the respondent. Evaluate

these arguments based on the law, the application of the facts to the law, the persuasiveness of the arguments, and how well the attorney addressed the questions by the Court. Be sure to discuss which arguments you accept and which you reject and why.

-Mr. Curran immediately starts off by referencing something Justice Kagan said during the discussion with Mr. Massey, and this is very strong. After a barrage of questions involving legal jargon that of which I am unfamiliar, I see that Mr. Curran starts to talk about how the citizens affected by this controversy have already been settling their own cases and have made monetary settlements for themselves. Mr. Curran argues that the state is suing, not on behalf of the citizens, but on behalf of themselves, and that they are “double dipping.” He mentions that the state is attempting to improve its economy via this lawsuit, and that the money

acquired from restitution will ultimately go to the treasury of the state. He cleverly states that Mississippi law prohibits the state from actually taking the money from a class action suit for itself; it must be given to the individuals that have been harmed in some way. He says that Mr. Massey would ensure that the winnings would go to the state, but they can’t according to the state law. The federal law at question is still whether or not this case is means for a mass action, but the philosophical basis for the arguments are starting to transform into whether or not the citizens will actually get their money. If no, then the case has no basis. If so, then it must be determined if it is still a mass action.

IV. What arguments would you have made to the Supreme Court? What changes or improvements would you make to the legal arguments? Reflect on why this case is important and the impact on business. What will happen to businesses if the petitioner wins? What if the respondent wins?

a. After further research and reading, I have come to the conclusion that a parens patriae case, according CAFA, is neither considered a mass action or a class action. If I were to argue for the petitioner’s side of the case, I would argue that the state of Mississippi is one whole entity, and that it doesn’t meet CAFA’s requirement for a mass action. I would also argue that even if this case were to encompass indefinable individuals with the same problem, their amount of controversy wouldn’t be $75,000 per person. CAFA states that mass actions are “suits that are brought on behalf of hundreds or thousands of ‘named plaintiffs’ who claim that their suits present common questions of law or fact.” Early versions of the bill also made it clear that actions covered under it shall not have named plaintiffs who was an attorney general. CAFA only applied to lawsuits provided by private attorneys. I would argue, ultimately, that CAFA’s supporters disregarded any intent to have parens patriae actions covered under its jurisdiction. CAFA excludes parens patriae actions from being considered class actions for the purpose of its jurisdiction, and therefore, making this case relevant to the Mississippi state law, and not the federal law.

b. I feel like the arguments made on both sides were adequate. Along with the petitioner’s arguments, the respondents did well in trying to make this particular case seem like it was relevant to CAFA, even though I feel as if it wasn’t. They wanted it to be covered by federal law so that CAFA would potentially deem (in federal court) the parens patriae suit to be unjust and an act of “double dipping (the many citizens have already had their own private trials; the state would get the money from this case, not the citizens).”

c. This is somewhat of a confusing case, and it is a philosophical one, as it questions the rights of citizens, states, and businesses. Price-fixing is a serious crime that disrupts the economy. There was not excuse for that to happen. Then the questions of whether or not the state had the right to sue all of those companies (some of which had no idea of the conspiracy) for money that would not be returned to the consumers who were hurt. If the petitioner wins the supreme court case, the case will be remanded back to the lower courts in Mississippi state court and be tried as relevant to the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and the Mississippi Antitrust Act (MAA), and not be relevant to federal law (CAFA).

If the respondent wins, the case will be remanded back to federal district court and be tried as relevant to CAFA, and not to MCPA and MAA. This case will ultimately have a big impact on business and state law. If the Mississippi laws are deemed relevant, businesses is Mississippi will be reluctant to fix their prices (or other illegal business acts), and other states will follow with similar acts so that they may exert the same amount of power over intrastate commerce for the safety of their consumers. If CAFA is deemed relevant, then the companies will likely be off the hook from being sued monetarily because CAFA will protect them from the parens patraie lawsuit.