Supreme Court Issues Major Class Action Decision
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

The Supreme Court today handed down its decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., a case which is sure to find its way into CivPro textbooks and final exam hypotheticals for  years to come.

The case involves a class action law suit brought by Shady Grove against Allstate under New York state law.  Allstate is alleged to have failed to pay or dispute claims within the time frame allotted, entitling Shady Grove to statutory interest.  Shady Grove filed on behalf of itself and at least 100 similarly situated plaintiffs in federal court, under diversity jurisdiction.

Allstate claimed that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction because New York procedural laws do not permit class action suits to be brought for statutory penalties.  The district court sided with Allstate and the 2nd Circuit upheld the lower court decision.  The Supreme Court today, in an unusual alignment of justices, reversed and sent the case back down.


At the heart of the case is Federal Rule 23, which lays out the requirements a class must meet to be certified as a class action in federal court.  According the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, Rule 23 is exhaustive and cannot by limited by state laws.  Allstate argued that §901(b) of the New York Civil Practice Rules was not in conflict with Rule 23 because Rule 23 determines whether a class may be certified while §901(b) determines the eligibility of a type of claim for class treatment but the Court rejected this formulation saying “…the line between eligibility and certifiability is entirely artificial. Both are preconditions for maintaining a class action.”

The Court noted that the New York law appeared to be addressing the concern that allowing class action suits to proceed for statutory damages could create situations where defendants are forced to pay out debilitating sums of money, far more than the original law envisioned.  Today’s opinion leaves open the possibility that state laws that capped or limited damages in class action suits might be acceptable but said  that whatever the intent of the New York legislature in this particular case, §901(b) sought to prevent the class from being formed at all in direct conflict with the controlling federal rule.

Andrew Tulumello, the vice-chair of Gibson Dunn’s class action and complex litigation group, noted in a story in the National Law Journal that states could effectively limit damages under this formulation but that state legislatures would have to be more careful in wording the limitations “in order to get it right.”

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!


Interesting Legal Sites You May Like




Search Now

Matrimonial/Family Law Attorney


Walden office of our client seeks matrimonial/family law attorney with 3-5 years of experience. The ...

Apply Now

Matrimonial Attorney

USA-NY-Garden City South

Garden City South office of our client seeks matrimonial attorney with experience. The candidate wil...

Apply Now

Probate Litigation Attorney


Orlando office of our client seeks probate litigation attorney with 3+ years of experience.

Apply Now


Legal Department Manager


Acclaim Credit Technologies is seeking full time individual for our legal department. Job requiremen...

Apply now

Workers' Rights Coordinator Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

La Raza Centro Legal Workers\' Rights Coordinating Attorney   JOB ANNOUNCEMENT Posi...

Apply now

Senior Law Coordinator Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

SENIOR LAW COORDINATING ATTORNEY La Raza Centro Legal is currently accepting applications for a c...

Apply now

Immigration Law Coordinator Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

Immigration Program Coordinating Attorney The Immigration Program Coordinating Attorney at La Raz...

Apply now


To Top