1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.Ct.
  4. 134 S.Ct.
  5. 134 S.Ct. 736 (2014)
 

MISSISSIPPI EX REL. HOOD v. AU OPTRONICS

No. 12-1036.

134 S.Ct. 736 (2014)

187 L.Ed.2d 654

MISSISSIPPI ex rel. Jim HOOD, Attorney General, Petitioner v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION et al.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided January 14, 2014.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jonathan S. Massey , Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Christopher M. Curran , Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Jonathan Massey , Massey & Gail LLP, Counsel of Record, Washington, DC, Jim Hood , Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Geoffrey Morgan , George W. Neville , Office of the Mississippi, Attorney General, Jackson, MS, A. Lee Abraham, Jr. , Preston Rideout , Abraham & Rideout, Greenwood, MS, Carolyn G. Anderson , David M. Cialkowski , Patricia A. Bloodgood , June P. Hoidal , Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.

Martin M. Toto , John H. Chung , Ross E. Elfand , White & Case LLP, New York, NY, Christopher M. Curran , Counsel of Record, Eric Grannon , Kristen J. McAhren , White & Case LLP, Washington, DC, for the Toshiba Respondents, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., and Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd.

Charles E. Ross , Michael B. Wallace , Rebecca Hawkins , Wise Carter Child & Caraway, P.A., Jackson, MS, Additional Counsel for the Toshiba Respondents.

Christopher A. Nedeau , Carl L. Blumenstein , Nossaman, LLP, San Francisco, CA, James W. Shelson , Phelps Dunbar LLP, Jackson, MS, for Respondents AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America.

Robert E. Freitas , Jason S. Angell , Jessica N. Leal , Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, for Respondent HannStar Display Corporation.

Christopher B. Hockett , Neal A. Potischman , Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Menlo Park, CA, Stephen L. Thomas , Bradley Arant Boult , Cummings LLP, Jackson, MS, for Respondents Chi Mei Corporation, Chimei Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and CMO Japan Co., Ltd.

Stephen B. Kinnaird , Kevin C. McCann , Lee F. Berger , Sean D. Unger , Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, Robert A. Miller , P. Ryan Beckett , Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens and Cannada, PLLC, Ridgeland, MS, Henry L. Parr, Jr. , Wyche, P.A., Greenville, SC, for Respondents LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.

Robert A. Long , Robert D. Wick , Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondents Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.

John M. Grenfell , Jacob R. Sorensen , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation.

Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA or Act), defendants in civil suits may remove "mass actions" from state to federal court. CAFA defines a "mass action" as "any civil action ... in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). The question...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases