Skip to Main Content
Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP
  • Our Firm
    • Who We Serve
      • Shareholders
      • Whistleblowers
      • Consumers
      • Businesses
      • Government Entities
    • Our Professionals
    • Working with Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP
    • Locations
    • News
    • Careers
    • Report Your Concern
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Antitrust Litigation
    • Business & Commercial Litigation
    • Securities & Corporate Governance
    • Healthcare Litigation
    • Consumer Protection
    • Whistle Blower False Claims Litigation
    • Government Representation
    • Employment Litigation
  • Cases
    • Antitrust Litigation Cases
    • Business & Commercial Litigation Cases
    • Consumer Protection Cases
    • Employment Litigation Cases
    • Government Representation Cases
    • Healthcare Litigation Cases
    • Mass Tort Litigation Cases
    • Securities & Corporate Governance Cases
    • Whistle Blower False Claims Cases
  • Investigations
    • Rental Rate Antitrust Lawsuit
    • Automobile 3G Network Shutdown Lawsuit
    • Similac Toxic Infant Formula Lawsuit
    • Kid’s Castle Biometric Privacy Lawsuit
    • Contaminated Baby Food Lawsuit
    • Fatal Sportmix Pet Food Recall Class Action Lawsuit
    • Claire’s Data Breach Lawsuit
    • Insurance Denial for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment
    • Perpetual Sales Litigation
    • Railroad Price-Fixing Lawsuit
    • Medicare Advantage Fraud Litigation
    • Biometric Fingerprinting Litigation
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
See all blog posts
6.24.2011

Not a Duck: State Can Still Bring Suit on Behalf of Citizens in Own State Court

By Kara Elgersma, Partner
Uncategorized, In The News, You Should Know

On May 20, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided whether an action instituted by the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia on behalf of the citizens of West Virginia against CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Kmart Holding Corp., The Kroger Co., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walgreen Co. and Target Stores, Inc. was a class action, removable under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”).  The West Virginia Attorney General made claims pursuant to two state statutes:  West Virginia Code §30-5-12b(g) (“Pharmacy Act”), which regulates the practice of pharmacy in the State; and the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act (“WVCCPA”), West Virginia Code §46A-6-104, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.  The complaint averred that the defendants, major pharmacies operating in West Virginia, had failed to pass along cost savings of generic drugs as compared to brand name equivalents, allegedly violating state pharmacy regulations and also constituting deceptive business practices under the WVCCPA.  In its sovereign capacity, the State, on behalf of its citizens, sought injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement of overcharges, recovery for consumers of excess charges, civil penalties, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

The Attorney General filed the complaint, pursuant to specific statutory provisions in both the Pharmacy Act and the WVCCPA, in Circuit Court, Boone County, West Virginia.  Defendants removed the case under CAFA, arguing that it was a “disguised” class action, even though no class statute or procedural rule was cited.  The State successfully opposed removal and the district court remanded the case to Boone County holding that the case was not a class action, but a “classic parens patriae” action intended to vindicate the interests of the state and its citizens.  West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al., No. 2:09-1000, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101127, at *50 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 21, 2010).  Defendants challenged the remand order and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the action was not a “class action” as defined by CAFA.

Among other things, in their removal efforts, Defendants asserted that the complaint was a disguised class action because it was designed to recover funds on behalf of those consumers who had paid too much for generic drugs.  State of West Virginia ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 11-1251, May 20, 2011 Opinion at 5.  Defendants argued that each of the requirements of a Rule 23 class action was alleged, though not in name, in the complaint.  For example, Count III of the complaint sought, as relief, the payment of any overcharge to any consumer who paid such excess fee.  Defendants argued that, by virtue of the number of prescriptions filled by them for the number of consumers in the State, both the numerosity requirement of a typical class action, and the amount-in-controversy requirement for removal under CAFA.  Moreover, since the Attorney General was seeking refunds “on behalf of” affected West Virginians, the action was a representational one, like class actions under CAFA.

Defendants necessarily conceded that the State did not purport to bring its action as a class action.  Id. at 6.  Rather, Defendants urged the Fourth Circuit to reverse the district court’s remand order by focusing on the substance of the allegations in the complaint, not the title or labels the State employed.  Id. at 6-7.

CAFA authorizes removal of certain actions brought under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a “similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more representative personas as a class action.”  28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(1)(B).  After arguing that the requirements of numerosity, amount-in-controversy and minimal diversity were met, Defendants focused on argument that the portions of Pharmacy Act and the WVCCPA upon which the Attorney General relied, were “similar” statutes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Fourth Circuit held that a state statute is “similar” to Rule 23 if it “closely resembles Rule 23 or is like Rule 23 in substance or in essentials.”  Id. at 8.  The Court went on to say that “[a]t its essence, Rule 23 provides that ‘one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if’ the criteria for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation are satisfied.”  Id. (internal citations omitted).  So, while a state statute need not contain all of the conditions and administrative aspects of Rule 23, it would, at least, need to provide a procedure by which a member of a class whose claim is typical of all other members can bring an action on his or her own behalf and on behalf of others, such that it would be fair to bind those class members to a judgment entered in the case, to be considered “similar” under CAFA.  Id. at 9.  The West Virginia procedural rule for class actions (West Virginia Civil Rule of Procedure 23) would qualify.

The statutes on which West Virginia relied, however, were not “similar.”  The Attorney General filed claims arising under state consumer protection statutes, pursuant to authority specifically granted to the Attorney General to bring suits on behalf of the State’s citizens.  Id. These statutes contain virtually none of the requirements of Rule 23.  Indeed, the Attorney General need not be a member of the “class” with a “typical” claim.  To the contrary, he or she is authorized as a parens patriae to vindicate the interests of, among others, the citizens of West Virginia.  Id. at 10.  Moreover, neither statute contains numerosity, commonality or typicality requirements.  Id. at 11. And, the Attorney General need not provide notice to potential citizen benefactors of the State’s action, which Rule 23 would require if monetary damages were sought.  Id.

The Court of Appeals was simply not convinced that the Attorney General’s action in this case was a “disguised” class action, artfully pleaded so as to avoid federal jurisdiction.  No – this case was like many government enforcement cases by various agencies, brought on behalf of groups, sometimes very large groups, of individuals, and seeking damage payments for group members.  See General Telephone Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980).  See also In re Edmond, 934 F.2d 1304 (4th Cir. 1991).  Here, as in those cases, the Attorney General was specifically authorized by state statutes to seek redress on behalf of state citizens, without regard to whether he/she had been injured by the violations alleged in the suit.

One of the panel of three judges dissented.  His view was that CAFA does not actually define “class action,” and finding that the pharmacy case fit squarely within the definition of class action provided by Black’s Law Dictionary.  Id. at 17.  The dissenting judge bought the Defendants argument that form should not be elevated over substance, and instead, the court should have determined what the essence of the action was.  Id. In this Judge’s opinion, the answer to that question turned on who the real party in interest was.  Id. He determined that the “primary thrust” of the case was the excess charges to the individual consumers – citizens of West Virginia, not the State itself.  Id. at 20.  The dissent also pointed out that there were cases virtually indistinguishable in other states, brought against the same defendants, which cases had to be brought as class actions because those state statutes did not provide for representation by the relevant state attorney general.  Id. at 21.  In summary, the dissent stated “if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.”  The dissenting view was that the case at hand “quacked” like a class action, not a parens patriae action.  Id. at 27.

Photo Credit: Elvert Barnes

Share

No Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Receive News Updates

Get the latest from Wexler Wallace LLP & stay informed.

Categories

  • Media Appearances
  • Uncategorized
  • Columns
    • Guest Post
    • Ken Wexler
  • Cases
  • Hall Of Shame
    • Villain Of The Week
  • In The News
    • Public Victories
  • The Firm
    • Around The World
    • Chicago
  • You Should Know
    • For Investors
    • For Businesses
    • For Consumers
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Image

311 S. Wacker Drive,
Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
P_312.346.2222
F_312.346.0022

  • Our Firm
  • Practice Areas
  • Cases
  • Investigations
  • Newsroom
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Sitemap
  • Privacy Statement
  • Legal Disclaimer

2023 © Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP

Wexler Boley & Elgersma uses cookies to improve the performance and functionality of this site. By using our website, you are providing us with your consent to use cookies on this site. Close Privacy Policy
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT