Case Details


CAFA, Parens Patriae

Filing State



U.S. Supreme Court




Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics, 571 U.S. ___ (2014).


the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which allows defendants in “mass actions” in state court to remove those cases to federal court, does not apply where the state is the sole named plaintiff.

Case Description

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 “mass action” as defined by the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Respondents argued that CAFA’s mass action provision should cover a case where claims were brought by fewer than 100 named plaintiffs, but more than 100 unnamed persons are real parties in interest as beneficiaries to those claims. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that Congress could have used the phrase “named or unnamed real parties in interest” rather than “persons” if it intended to cover real parties in interest. Congress’ repeated use of the word “plaintiffs” refers to “actual named parties—a concept inherently at odds with the background inquiry into unnamed real parties in interest, who by definition are never plaintiffs.”