CLASS ACTIONS / TYPICALITY / SETTLEMENT OBJECTORS
Ault
v. Walt Disney World Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18465 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2012)
rejected the class action objectors’ arguments that the class did not satisfy the
prerequisites to class certification set forth in Rule 23(a), because the class
representatives’ claims lacked the required typicality. While each class member may have a stronger
or weaker claim, the court concluded that this alone did not make class
representatives’ claims atypical of the class as a whole. Class members' claims
need not be identical to satisfy the typicality requirement; rather, there need
only exist “a sufficient nexus . . . between the legal claims of the named
class representatives and those of individual class members to warrant class
certification.” Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d
1266, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2000). This nexus exists “if the claims or defenses of the class and the class representative
arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same
legal theory.” Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,
741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 1984). The district court did not abuse its
discretion by finding that the claims of the class representatives and class
members are typical and warrant class certification.
TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
ROOKER-FELDMAN / RES JUDICATA / COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
Vasquez v. YII
Shipping Company, Ltd., ---
F.3d --- (11th Cir. August 30, 2012) vacated an order dismissing a seaman’s complaint
alleging violations of the Jones Act, and federal maritime law of
unseaworthiness. Vasquez originally
filed his suit in Florida court, which dismissed his claims based on Florida’s
doctrine of forum non conveniens, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
Vasquez then brought the same claims in federal district court, arguing that
federal maritime law applied to his case and that venue was not improper under
federal forum non conveniens principles. Although the Florida court never
decided whether federal maritime law was applicable to Vasquez’s case, the
district court ruled that under principles of res judicata and collateral
estoppel, Vasquez was precluded from litigating facts relevant to his federal
maritime claims. The district court then dismissed Vasquez’s complaint on the
grounds of federal forum non conveniens and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine based
on its application of collateral estoppel and res judicata. The appellate court
found that collateral estoppel applies only when identical issues are involved
and that was not the case here. Likewise, res judicata applies only to a final
judgment on the merits and, therefore, was not applicable here where there has
been no merits determination. Finally, the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine was a narrow doctrine that only applies to an attempt
to appeal a state court judgment. The doctrine holds that federal courts below
the Supreme Court must not become a court of appeals for state court decisions.
The state court appellant has to find a state court remedy, or obtain relief
from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is “confined to cases”
that were “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by
state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced
and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon
Mobile Corp. v Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). In this case, Vasquez’s lawsuit does not seek
appellate review of the state court’s decision applying Florida’s forum non
conveniens rules to his claims. Instead, Vasquez seeks review of the district
court’s order that federal maritime law does not apply to his case, an issue not
resolved by the state court.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115141.pdf
TRIBAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
Contour
Spa at the Hard Rock, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS
18464 (11th Cir. Aug. 30, 2012) affirmed the dismissal of a breach of lease
agreement suit based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Tribe’s
sovereign immunity. In the lease the
Tribe expressly waived its sovereign immunity concerning any lawsuits Contour
might bring based on the Tribe's default or breach of the lease agreement, but
the entire lease’s validity was explicitly conditioned upon approval by the
Secretary of the Interior, and such approval was never obtained.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201111997.pdfROOKER-FELDMAN / RES JUDICATA / COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115141.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment