No. 18-654

Philip Morris USA Inc., et al. v. Richard Boatright, et ux.

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2018-11-20
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: civil-procedure claim-preclusion class-action due-process engle-progeny issue-preclusion jury-findings preclusion procedural-due-process
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 Florida Supreme Court, this unorthodox approach to the preclusive effect of class-action findings is consistent with due process because the defendants had 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 Philip Morris USA Inc. and Liggett Group LLC filed.
2019-01-22
Brief of respondents Richard Boatright and Deborah Boatright in opposition filed.
2018-12-14
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Philip Morris USA Inc. and Liggett Group LLC.
2018-12-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 22, 2019.
2018-12-07
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)
2018-09-14
Application (18A247) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until November 19, 2018.
2018-09-11
Response to application from respondent Richard Boatright and Deborah Boatright filed.
2018-09-10
Application (18A247) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 20, 2018 to November 19, 2018, submitted to Justice Thomas.

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
Philip Morris USA Inc. and Liggett Group LLC
Miguel A. EstradaGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Petitioner
Miguel A. EstradaGibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Petitioner
Richard Boatright and Deborah Boatright
Celene Harrell HumphriesBannock & Humphries, Respondent
Celene Harrell HumphriesBannock & Humphries, Respondent