Microsoft Corp. v. Baker

Supreme Court of the United States
137 S. Ct. 1702, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3721, 198 L. Ed. 2d 132 (2017)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A plaintiff who has been denied class certification cannot create a 'final decision' appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 by voluntarily dismissing their individual claims with prejudice. This tactic impermissibly circumvents the discretionary appellate review process established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).

Facts:

Microsoft Corporation released the Xbox 360 videogame console.
A group of Xbox owners (respondents) alleged that a design defect in the console caused it to scratch and destroy game discs during normal play.
A prior lawsuit, In re Microsoft Xbox 360 Scratched Disc Litigation, which involved the same alleged defect, had its class certification denied by a district court.
Following that earlier denial, the plaintiffs in that case settled their individual claims.
The current respondents filed a new lawsuit against Microsoft based on the same alleged design defect, again seeking to represent a nationwide class of Xbox owners.
Respondents argued that an intervening Ninth Circuit decision constituted a change in law that should overcome the previous certification denial.

Procedural Posture:

Seth Baker and other Xbox owners (respondents) sued Microsoft Corporation (petitioner) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The District Court granted Microsoft's motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations, which is the functional equivalent of denying class certification.
The plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the interlocutory order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).
The Ninth Circuit denied the Rule 23(f) petition.
The plaintiffs then stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of their individual claims with prejudice, while reserving the right to appeal the earlier order striking the class allegations.
The District Court granted the dismissal and entered a final judgment.
The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Ninth Circuit, challenging only the District Court's order striking their class allegations. Microsoft was the appellee.
The Ninth Circuit held it had jurisdiction, reversed the District Court’s order, and remanded the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.

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 plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of claims with prejudice, following the denial of class certification, constitute a 'final decision' under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 that permits immediate appellate review of the certification order?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Ginsburg

No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice, engineered solely to manufacture appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order denying class certification, does not qualify as a 'final decision' under § 1291. The final judgment rule is designed to prevent piecemeal litigation, and allowing such a tactic would subvert this core principle. More importantly, it would undermine the carefully calibrated system established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which provides for discretionary, not mandatory, interlocutory review of class certification orders. Rule 23(f) was created through the formal rulemaking process to balance the needs of litigants against the costs of interlocutory appeals. Allowing plaintiffs to unilaterally create an appeal of right after being denied permissive review under Rule 23(f) would render that rule's discretionary nature meaningless and create a one-sided system unavailable to defendants.

Concurring - Justice Thomas

No. While I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the dismissal was not a 'final decision' under § 1291, the court of appeals nonetheless lacked jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. A decision is final under § 1291 when it ends the litigation on the merits, which a dismissal with prejudice does. However, the constitutional problem is that once the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their own claims, they consented to a judgment against them and no longer had a personal stake in the outcome. This eliminated the 'case or controversy' required by Article III. Since class allegations are merely a procedural device attached to an underlying individual claim, with no independent legal status, the lack of a live individual claim means there is nothing for the federal courts to adjudicate.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the final judgment rule and closes a procedural loophole that some plaintiffs used to force immediate appellate review of adverse class certification rulings. The Court's holding reinforces the exclusivity of Rule 23(f) as the proper channel for seeking such interlocutory review, emphasizing that appellate jurisdiction is a matter of court discretion, not plaintiff's choice. By rejecting this tactic, the Court prevents litigants from circumventing established procedural rules and affirms the primacy of the formal rulemaking process in governing federal court procedure. The case serves as a strong deterrent against 'inventive litigation ploys' designed to secure piecemeal appellate review.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"