No. 18-649

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. v. Cheryl Searcy, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carol LaSard

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2018-11-20
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: actually-decided civil-procedure claim-preclusion class-action constitutional-law due-process eleventh-circuit issue-preclusion jury-findings opportunity-to-be-heard preclusion
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess ClassAction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-02-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Due Process Clause is violated by a rule that permits plaintiffs to invoke a prior jury's findings to establish elements of their claims without showing that those elements were actually decided in their favor in the prior proceeding

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Florida Supreme Court has devised a new, doctrine of claim preclusion in order to facilitate the classwide adjudication of inherently individualized claims. Under this unprecedented approach to preclusion, the members of an issues class can rely on the class jury’s findings to establish elements of their claims in individual suits against the class-action defendants without having to show that the class jury actually decided those issues in their favor. For preclusion to apply, it is sufficient that the class jury might have decided those issues. According to the Eleventh Circuit, the Florida Supreme Court’s unorthodox approach to the preclusive effect of class-action findings is consistent with due process because the defendants had notice and an “opportunity to be heard” in the class proceedings. The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause is violated by a rule that permits plaintiffs to invoke a prior jury’s findings to establish elements of their claims without showing that those elements were actually decided in their favor in the prior proceeding, based merely on the fact that the defendant had an opportunity to be heard on those issues in the prior proceeding and the possibility that the relevant issues might have been decided in the plaintiffs’ favor in that proceeding.

Docket Entries

2019-02-25
Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2019-02-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2019-02-05
Reply of petitioners R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc. filed.
2019-01-22
Brief of respondent Cheryl Searcy, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carol LaSard in opposition filed.
2018-12-14
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc..
2018-11-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 22, 2019.
2018-11-24
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 20, 2018 to January 22, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-11-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2018)

Attorneys

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, American Tort Reform Association and National Association of Manufacturers
Anton MetlitskyO'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Amicus
Anton MetlitskyO'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Amicus
Cheryl Searcy, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carol LaSard
Samuel Issacharoff — Respondent
Samuel Issacharoff — Respondent
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc.
Miguel A. EstradaGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Petitioner
Miguel A. EstradaGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Petitioner