© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The solar units on the U.S. Supreme Court docket constructing after a stormy day in Washington, U.S., November 11, 2022. REUTERS/Leah Millis
By Nate Raymond
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court docket on Monday declined to listen to a bid by StarKist Co, owned by South Korea’s Dongwon Industries, to keep away from a lawsuit by tuna consumers accusing it of fixing costs.
The justices turned away StarKist’s enchantment of a decrease court docket’s resolution that permit three teams of tuna purchasers obtain class motion standing to collectively sue the canned tuna firm despite the fact that numerous consumers could not have been overcharged and injured by the worth fixing.
The case might have given the justices, had they determined to listen to it, an opportunity to make it tougher for customers and different plaintiffs to obtain class motion standing.
The Reston, Virginia-based firm, which produces StarKist Tuna, had requested the Supreme Court docket to contemplate whether or not plaintiffs might nonetheless win class motion standing in instances during which a few of the members of the category weren’t injured by an organization’s alleged wrongdoing.
StarKist’s enchantment garnered the help of enterprise teams together with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in a short to the justices stated “there are too many judges who, regardless of this court docket’s directions, proceed to place a heavy thumb on the size in favor of sophistication certification.”
Class motion standing permits a number of plaintiffs to litigate on behalf of a a lot bigger group reasonably than forcing people to litigate individually. Companies battle to keep away from instances successful class motion standing, which might expose them to huge potential damages and create strain to settle.
The litigation, filed in federal court docket in California, adopted a U.S. Justice Division investigation right into a three-year conspiracy by U.S. suppliers of packaged tuna together with StarKist and Bumble Bee Meals to repair costs for his or her merchandise in violation of antitrust legal guidelines.
StarKist pleaded responsible, admitting to having fastened the costs of canned tuna from as early as November 2011 by means of no less than as late as December 2013, and was sentenced in 2019 to a $100 million high-quality. Bumble Bee and three trade executives additionally pleaded responsible. Former Bumble Bee CEO Christopher Lischewski was convicted at trial and sentenced in 2020 to 40 months in jail.
Prosecutors stated the scheme affected greater than $600 million {dollars} of canned tuna gross sales.
Amid the investigation, quite a lot of packaged tuna purchasers filed proposed class actions in opposition to Bumble Bee, StarKist and a 3rd firm, Rooster of the Sea, who collectively bought greater than 80% of the packaged tuna in the USA. The plaintiffs accused the businesses of violating federal and state antitrust legal guidelines by means of a scheme that prompted them to overpay for tuna.
In 2019, a trial decide granted class motion standing to a few separate teams of tuna consumers: direct purchasers resembling nationwide retailers and regional grocery shops; industrial meals preparers; and particular person customers.
The businesses appealed, saying 28% or extra of direct purchasers by their evaluation could not have been harmed.
A 3-judge panel of the San Francisco-based ninth U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals in 2021 decertified the three courses, saying the decide had failed to find out whether or not or not the variety of unhurt tuna consumers was too small to justify class motion standing.
On additional overview, an 11-judge ninth Circuit panel voted 9-2 in April to interrupt the three courses aside and declined to undertake a rule in opposition to certifying a category motion even when solely a trivial variety of class members have been harmed. StarKist appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court docket.
