Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed two amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm its precedent limiting review of class action certification decisions. After the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their defective design claims with prejudice, they appealed the district court ruling that denied class certification. This litigation is important to manufacturers because piecemeal appeals from a single district court proceeding can prolong litigation, thereby increasing litigation costs. The NAM’s brief argued that 1) the case was moot after the parties agreed to dismiss the action with prejudice, 2) the district court’s holding ignored Supreme Court precedent regarding piecemeal appeals and 3) the holding was at odds with proper interpretation of the statue. In a win for manufacturers, the Supreme Court agreed with the NAM’s arguments.

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a class action certification in an antitrust conspiracy certified solely based on presumptions of class-wide injury. This appeal came after a lower court denied the defendant the opportunity to rebut a presumption that all plaintiffs, purchasers of urethane foam, suffered the same damages as a result of the antitrust conspiracy even though each purchaser negotiated an individual price with the manufacturers. This case threatened to expose businesses to the risk of staggering class judgments and even for those who manage to defeat liability, substantially higher litigation costs. The NAM’s brief argued that 1) in class actions, parties have the right to raise any claim or defense specific to the individual class member; and 2) the lower court’s decision impeded due process and threatened to permit any conspiracy to be certified as a class action, thus potentially expanding the scope of class liability. This case settled on February 26, 2016.

The NAM filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a class action litigation urging the Court to determine whether a certified class may include uninjured claimants. The plaintiffs sued Tyson foods alleging injury and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seeking overtime wages for time spent dressing and removing protective gear; however, the plaintiffs used statistical modeling to create a fictional plaintiff as the basis of class certification. The rise of no injury class plaintiffs is troublesome to manufacturers because it subjects them to increased litigation from plaintiffs who can hide the deficiencies of individual class member claims. The NAM’s brief urged the Supreme Court to set a bright-line rule against the inclusion of uninjured class members and argued that individuals without injuries do not have a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling but did so on narrow grounds and did not reach the issue that was central to the NAM’s amicus brief.