LG Display Co. Ltd. v. Madigan, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23036 (7th Cir. 2011)
The Attorney General of Illinois filed suit in state court against eight manufacturers of LCD panels for violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act. The complaint sought injunctive relief, civil penalties, and treble statutory damages for the state as a purchaser and, as parens patriae, for harmed residents. The defendants removed the case to federal court…
Myinfoguard v. Sorrell, No. 2:12-cv-00102 (D.Vt. Nov. 9, 2012).
Out of state defendants challenged the constitutionality of a Vermont consumer protection statute in federal court. Days later, the state sued the defendants in state court for violations of the statute. Defendants sought removal under CAFA. The state sought an injunction, civil penalties and restitution for consumers. The court concluded that the state is the…
Hood v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 13-60686 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2013)
The Fifth Circuit first noted that CAFA applies to a “mass action” where the monetary claims of 100 or more persons involve common questions of law or fact. The statute provides “[J]urisdiction shall exist only over those plaintiffs whose claims in a mass action “exceed the sum or value of $75,000 exclusive of interest and…
Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics, 571 U.S. ___ (2014).
The state of Mississippi brought a case in state court against manufacturers of liquid crystal display panels (LCDs), alleging violations of the state’s antitrust laws and seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties and restitution for itself and its citizens. Defendants (respondents in the Supreme Court) removed the case to federal court, alleging that it was a…
