In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.
51 F.3d 1293 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A writ of mandamus may be issued to decertify a mass tort class action where the certification order inflicts irreparable harm by creating immense settlement pressure and constitutes a clear abuse of judicial discretion by attempting to apply a non-existent general common law and violating the Seventh Amendment.
Facts:
- Drug companies, including Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., manufactured and sold blood solids containing clotting factors for hemophiliacs.
- In the early 1980s, before the nature of HIV/AIDS was fully understood, the blood supply used to create these products became contaminated with HIV.
- As a result, a substantial number of hemophiliacs who used the defendants' products became infected with HIV.
- Plaintiffs alleged the companies were negligent for failing to take measures to screen donors or treat the blood, measures which they argued were already necessary due to the known risk of Hepatitis B.
- By 1984, the medical community established that HIV was transmitted by blood, and by 1985, reliable screening tests and heat treatments for blood products were developed and implemented.
- Many of the infected hemophiliacs likely contracted HIV in the early 1980s before these safety measures were in place.
Procedural Posture:
- Approximately 300 individual lawsuits were filed against the defendant drug companies in various state and federal courts.
- The federal lawsuits, brought under diversity jurisdiction, were consolidated for pretrial discovery in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- In one of these cases, Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., the district court certified a plaintiff class for the determination of certain issues, specifically the defendants' negligence.
- The defendants then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking an order directing the district court judge to decertify the class.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court's order certifying a nationwide, issues-only class action in a mass tort case constitute a clear abuse of discretion justifying a writ of mandamus?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge
Yes, the order constitutes a clear abuse of discretion justifying a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is appropriate here because both of its required conditions are met: the certification order inflicts irreparable harm and it so far exceeds the bounds of judicial discretion as to be usurpative. The irreparable harm exists because the sheer magnitude of potential liability in a class action (estimated in the billions) creates overwhelming pressure for the defendants to settle, regardless of the merits of their case, thereby precluding any possibility of appellate review of the certification order. The order is a clear abuse of discretion for three cumulative reasons: 1) it stakes the fate of an entire industry on the verdict of a single jury, when a decentralized process of multiple individual trials is feasible and would yield a more robust determination of liability; 2) it violates the principles of Erie R.R. v. Tompkins by proposing to apply a generalized, 'Esperanto' negligence standard that is not the actual law of any state; and 3) it violates the Seventh Amendment's Reexamination Clause by dividing issues between an initial class-wide jury and subsequent individual juries in a way that would require different juries to reexamine overlapping factual questions, such as the comparison between the defendants' negligence and a plaintiff's comparative negligence.
Dissenting - Rovner, Circuit Judge
No, a writ of mandamus is not justified because the defendants have an adequate alternative remedy in a post-judgment appeal. Mandamus is a drastic remedy reserved for extraordinary cases where a party has no other means to obtain relief. The majority's reliance on settlement pressure as a form of irreparable harm would effectively make every class certification order subject to mandamus review, directly circumventing the Supreme Court's holding in Coopers & Lybrand that such orders are not immediately appealable. The risk of settlement is a known feature of class actions and does not render a future appeal an inadequate remedy. Furthermore, class certification orders are conditional and can be modified or decertified by the district judge if the envisioned problems materialize, at which point the decision could be reviewed on a full record rather than on speculation.
Analysis:
This case significantly heightened the scrutiny applied to nationwide mass tort class actions, particularly those in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The court's willingness to use the extraordinary writ of mandamus signaled a strong judicial skepticism toward innovative but potentially problematic case management techniques. By framing immense settlement pressure as a form of irreparable harm, the decision provides a powerful tool for defendants opposing class certification. It strongly reinforces the Erie doctrine's prohibition against federal courts creating 'general common law' and underscores the constitutional limits the Seventh Amendment places on bifurcating trials before different juries.
Unlock the full brief for In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.