No. The Court decided that Kansas could hear the case for everyone, which is called having 'jurisdiction.' As long as people get a notice in the mail and have a chance to say 'count me out' (opt out), the court can include them. However, the Court said it was not fair for Kansas to apply its own state laws to everybody's complaint. A state can only use its own laws if it has a real connection to the problem being solved. Since most of the landowners and gas leases were in other states like Texas and Oklahoma, the Kansas court should have looked at the laws of those states instead of just using Kansas law for the whole group.

Yes. I agree that Kansas was the right place to have the trial for everyone. But I disagree about which laws to use. I think the laws in Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma were not really that different for this specific problem. The Kansas court came up with a fair solution based on general ideas of fairness, which the other states would probably agree with. I think the majority is being too picky about small, 'potential' differences in state laws, and the company is just using this as a tactic to get out of paying what it owes.

Yes, Kansas can make decisions for the people in the lawsuit if it gives them the best possible notice, listens to them, and lets them choose not to be part of it. But Kansas can't use its own laws for everyone's cases because the gas deals and most people aren't connected to Kansas, so it's not fair and goes against the Constitution. Also, the lawsuit lets people with small claims join together so they can actually have their day in court.

I agree that Kansas courts could make decisions for this big lawsuit. But I don't think there's a problem with Kansas using its own laws. The Kansas court looked carefully at the laws of other states involved and found that Kansas law doesn't actually conflict with those other states' laws. The Court is wrong to say there's a constitutional issue just because another state's law might lead to a different result.

The Supreme Court has directed that absent class members "must receive notice plus an opportunity to be heard and participate in the [class action] litigation, whether in person or through counsel."

The Supreme Court has held that application of only one state's law in the context of a class action may violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution.

W] e hold that a forum State may exercise jurisdiction over the claim of an absent class-action plaintiff, even though that plaintiff may not possess the minimum contacts with the forum which would support personal jurisdiction over a defendant

" `[F] or a State's substantive law to be selected in a constitutionally permissible manner, that State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.'"

"[D] ue process requires at a minimum that an absent plaintiff be provided with an opportunity to remove himself from the class by executing and returning an `opt out'or `request for exclusion'form to the court. "

"Standing to sue in any Article III court is, of course, a federal question which does not depend on the party's prior standing in state court."

Class actions also may permit the plaintiffs to pool claims which would be uneconomical to litigate individually....[M] ost of the plaintiffs would have no realistic day in court if a class action were not available

Due process, however, requires that notice be "the best practicable, reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections."

This court need not resolve the issue if the state laws "relevant to the set of facts are the same, or would produce the same decision in the lawsuit."

Where the class claims are so economically insignificant that no single plaintiff can afford to maintain the lawsuit on his own, Rule 23 affords the plaintiffs a "realistic day in court" by allowing them to pool their claims.

No. For a State’s substantive law to be selected in a constitutionally permissible manner, that State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair. The Court first addressed the distinct issue of personal jurisdiction, holding that the 'minimum contacts' standard from International Shoe does not apply to absent class-action plaintiffs. Due process is satisfied for absent plaintiffs if they receive adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, an opportunity to 'opt out' of the class, and are adequately represented. Turning to the choice-of-law question, the Court found that Kansas law materially conflicted with the laws of other interested states, such as Texas and Oklahoma, particularly regarding applicable interest rates. Applying the test from Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, the Court concluded that Kansas lacked the 'significant aggregation of contacts' to the claims of each class member necessary to make the application of Kansas law to all claims constitutional. Kansas's interests were minimal, given that nearly all plaintiffs and leases were outside the state. The Court rejected the argument that plaintiffs' failure to opt out constituted consent to Kansas law, as this would encourage forum shopping. Finally, a state may not use its proper assumption of jurisdiction over a class action as a 'bootstrap' to apply its own law to satisfy the 'common question of law' requirement for class certification.

Yes. A forum state may apply its own law where there is no direct or substantive conflict with the established laws of other connected jurisdictions. I agree with the Court's holding on personal jurisdiction. However, I dissent from the choice-of-law holding because this is a classic 'false conflicts' case. A fair reading of the Kansas Supreme Court's decisions reveals that it correctly concluded there was no direct conflict between Kansas law and the laws of Texas and Oklahoma. Kansas merely developed general common-law principles of equity to address the novel facts of this case, a result which is not inconsistent with the laws of other states. The majority errs by applying a loose definition of 'conflict' and relying on mere allegations of 'putative' or 'likely' conflicts. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not violated by a mere misconstruction of a sister state's law, and the Due Process Clause is not violated by an unexpected result absent a true conflict of laws that frustrates the justifiable expectations of the parties. The Kansas court's decision was neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.

Yes, a state may exercise jurisdiction over absent class-action plaintiffs if they receive the best practicable notice, an opportunity to be heard, and can opt out of the class. However, Kansas cannot apply its own law to all claims in the nationwide class action because it lacks significant contact or aggregation of contacts with the claims, making the application of Kansas law arbitrary and fundamentally unfair, thus violating the Due Process Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Additionally, the class action mechanism allows plaintiffs with economically insignificant claims to pool their resources and have a realistic day in court.

I agree that the Kansas courts properly exercised jurisdiction over this class action. However, I disagree that there is a constitutional defect in the Kansas court's choice-of-law decision. A fair reading of the Kansas Supreme Court's opinion reveals that it examined the laws of connected jurisdictions and correctly concluded that there is no direct or substantive conflict between the law applied by Kansas and the laws of those other States. The Court errs by applying a loose definition of the sort of conflict of laws required to state a constitutional claim. I would require demonstration of an unambiguous conflict with the established law of another State as an essential element of a constitutional choice-of-law claim.

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot