Thorogood v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

Summarize Case

Related Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Decemberȱ2,ȱ2010ȱ ȱ ȱ Beforeȱ ȱ RICHARDȱA.ȱPOSNER,ȱCircuitȱJudgeȱ ȱ MICHAELȱS.ȱKANNE,ȱCircuitȱJudgeȱ ȱ TERENCEȱT.ȱEVANS,ȱCircuitȱJudgeȱ ȱ ȱ No.ȱ10–2407ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ STEVENȱ J.ȱ THOROGOOD,ȱ individuallyȱ andȱ AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱ onȱbehalfȱofȱallȱothersȱsimilarlyȱsituated,ȱ DistrictȱCourtȱforȱtheȱNorthernȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPlaintiffȬAppellee,ȱ DistrictȱofȱIllinois,ȱEasternȱDivision.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱv.ȱ No.ȱ06ȱCȱ1999ȱ ȱ ȱ SEARS,ȱROEBUCKȱANDȱCOMPANY,ȱ HarryȱD.ȱLeinenweber,ȱJudge.ȱ DefendantȬAppellant. ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ OȱRȱDȱEȱRȱ ȱ Theȱ plaintiffȬappelleeȱ filedȱ aȱ petitionȱ forȱ panelȱ rehearing,ȱ andȱ rehearingȱ enȱ banc,ȱ onȱ Novemberȱ16,ȱ2010.ȱAllȱtheȱjudgesȱonȱtheȱpanelȱhaveȱvotedȱtoȱdenyȱtheȱpetition,ȱandȱnoȱjudgeȱ hasȱrequestedȱaȱvoteȱonȱrehearingȱtheȱcaseȱenȱbanc.ȱButȱinȱviewȱofȱtheȱaccusationsȱleveledȱinȱtheȱ petitionȱ byȱ theȱ plaintiff’sȱ lawyer,ȱ Clintonȱ A.ȱ Krislov,ȱ againstȱ theȱ panel’sȱ decision,ȱ weȱ haveȱ decidedȱthatȱaȱfurtherȱstatement,ȱbeyondȱmerelyȱreportingȱtheȱdenialȱofȱtheȱpetition,ȱwouldȱbeȱ helpfulȱtoȱreadersȱofȱtheȱpanelȱopinionȱ(2010ȱWLȱ4286367,ȱNov.ȱ2,ȱ2010;ȱourȱearlierȱopinionsȱinȱ thisȱprotractedȱlitigationȱareȱreportedȱatȱ547ȱF.3dȱ742ȱandȱ595ȱF.3dȱ759),ȱreadersȱofȱtheȱpetitionȱ forȱrehearing—andȱperhapsȱevenȱMr.ȱKrislov,ȱwhoseȱaccusationsȱareȱoverȱtheȱtop,ȱasȱweȱshallȱ nowȱexplain,ȱandȱwhoȱmayȱwishȱtoȱmoderateȱhisȱfury.ȱ ȱ Theȱ petitionȱ expressesȱ inȱ tonesȱ ofȱ outrageȱ (1)ȱ disagreementȱ withȱ theȱ meritsȱ ofȱ ourȱ decision,ȱincludingȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱinjunctionȱthatȱweȱorderedȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱtoȱenter;ȱandȱ(2)ȱ outrageȱatȱtheȱpanel’sȱcharacterizationȱofȱKrislov’sȱandȱBoling’sȱlitigationȱtactics.ȱMarkȱBolingȱisȱ Krislov’sȱcocounselȱinȱtheȱCaliforniaȱcopycatȱclassȱactionȱsuitȱthatȱweȱorderedȱenjoinedȱonȱtheȱ 2 authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ Allȱ Writsȱ Act.ȱ Krislovȱ isȱ theȱ colorfulȱ attorneyȱ (andȱ Illinoisȱ politician1)ȱ whoȱ inȱ theȱoralȱargumentȱofȱtheȱfirstȱappealȱinȱthisȱlawsuitȱaboutȱallegedȱrustȱstainsȱinȱclothesȱdryersȱ soldȱ byȱ Searsȱ Roebuckȱ askedȱ usȱ toȱ quizȱ ourȱ wivesȱ asȱ toȱ whetherȱ theyȱ worryȱ thatȱ aȱ “stainlessȱ steel“ȱclothesȱdryerȱmightȱcauseȱrustȱstainsȱonȱtheȱclothesȱbeingȱdriedȱunlessȱtheȱdryer’sȱdrumȱ wasȱ madeȱ entirelyȱ ofȱ stainlessȱ steel.ȱ Theȱ wivesȱ unanimouslyȱ answeredȱ “no.”ȱ Givenȱ Krislov’sȱ challengeȱ(askȱyourȱwives),ȱthatȱshouldȱhaveȱendedȱthisȱlitigation.ȱ(Andȱspeakingȱofȱgender,ȱweȱ noteȱKrislov’sȱremarkȱatȱtheȱoralȱargument:ȱ“Notȱtoȱbeȱsexist,ȱyourȱhonor,ȱbutȱmaybeȱweȱshouldȱ haveȱthisȱenȱbancȱsoȱsomeȱofȱtheȱfemaleȱjudgesȱonȱthisȱcourtȱcouldȱsitȱandȱmightȱweighȱin.”ȱThisȱ mayȱ beȱ anȱ unacknowledgedȱ groundȱ onȱ whichȱ heȱ isȱ seekingȱ notȱ onlyȱ panelȱ rehearingȱ butȱ rehearingȱenȱbanc.)ȱ ȱ Theȱpetitionȱnotesȱaȱtensionȱbetweenȱourȱinjunctionȱ(againstȱtheȱCaliforniaȱclassȱaction),ȱ andȱourȱsimilarȱinjunctionȱinȱInȱreȱBridgestone/Firestone,ȱInc.ȱTiresȱProductsȱLiabilityȱLitigation,ȱ333ȱ F.3dȱ763ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2003),ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱtheȱSupremeȱCourt’sȱdecisionsȱinȱTaylorȱv.ȱSturgell,ȱ 553ȱU.S.ȱ880ȱ(2008),ȱandȱPhillipsȱPetroleumȱCo.ȱv.ȱShutts,ȱ472ȱU.S.ȱ797ȱ(1985),ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand.ȱ Butȱ itsȱ failureȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ theȱ grantȱ ofȱ certiorariȱ inȱ Smithȱ v.ȱ Bayer,ȱ 131ȱ S.ȱ Ct.ȱ 61ȱ (2010)ȱ (discussedȱinȱourȱopinion),ȱisȱtelling:ȱtheȱholdingsȱinȱtheȱcasesȱthatȱKrislovȱcitesȱdoȱnotȱriseȱtoȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ aȱ “clearȱ directive”ȱ fromȱ theȱ Supremeȱ Court.ȱ Insteadȱ aȱ circuitȱ splitȱ hasȱ developedȱ concerningȱ whetherȱ andȱ whenȱ classȱ certificationȱ ordersȱ canȱ serveȱ asȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ collateralȱ estoppelȱ inȱ otherȱ forums.ȱ Ourȱ opinionȱ notesȱ thisȱ tensionȱ andȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ theȱ meritsȱ decisionȱinȱSmithȱv.ȱBayer,ȱwhenȱitȱisȱissued,ȱmayȱwarrantȱmodificationȱofȱtheȱinjunctionȱthatȱweȱ haveȱordered.ȱ Theȱpetitionȱignoresȱtheȱprincipalȱreasonsȱourȱopinionȱgaveȱforȱenjoiningȱtheȱcopycatȱclassȱ action.ȱItȱsaysȱvirtuallyȱnothingȱaboutȱtheȱAllȱWritsȱAct,ȱthoughȱthatȱwasȱtheȱveryȱgroundȱofȱourȱ decision,ȱ andȱ makesȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ disingenuousȱ statementsȱ suchȱ asȱ thatȱ “ratherȱ thanȱ seekingȱ interlocutoryȱ reviewȱ inȱ theȱ Ninthȱ Circuit,ȱ Searsȱ filedȱ anȱ Allȱ Writsȱ Act,ȱ 28ȱ U.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1651ȱ (‘Allȱ Writsȱ Act’)ȱ petitionȱ inȱ theȱ closedȱ Thorogoodȱ caseȱ inȱ theȱ Northernȱ Districtȱ ofȱ Illinoisȱ seekingȱ toȱ enjoinȱtheȱpreviousȱunnoticedȱclassȱmembersȱfromȱbringingȱclassȱclaimsȱelsewhere.”ȱSearsȱcouldȱ notȱappealȱtheȱCaliforniaȱcourt’sȱorderȱbecauseȱitȱwasȱnotȱanȱappealableȱorder.ȱ Theȱ petitionȱ ignoresȱ ourȱ pointȱ thatȱ classȱ certificationȱ isȱ improperȱ givenȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ rustȬstainsȱ claim,ȱ whichȱ doesȱ notȱ presentȱ “commonȱ issuesȱ ofȱ lawȱ orȱ fact”ȱ thatȱ canȱ supportȱ aȱ classȱaction.ȱItȱignoresȱourȱpointȱthatȱMurray’sȱsuitȱisȱindeedȱaȱcopycat.ȱItȱignoresȱourȱcriticismsȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱdistrictȱ courtȱ opinions.ȱ Itȱ saysȱ thatȱ“theȱ Panel…orderedȱ theȱ districtȱ judgeȱ toȱ enjoinȱ classȱmembersȱfromȱpursuingȱcausesȱasȱaȱclassȱactionȱagainstȱSears,ȱanywhere,”ȱyetȱignoresȱthatȱ theȱopinionȱisȱexplicitȱthatȱindividualȱclaimsȱareȱnotȱtoȱbeȱenjoined.ȱEvenȱclassȱactionsȱ“againstȱ Sears,ȱ anywhere”ȱ areȱ permitted,ȱ providedȱ theyȱ areȱ notȱ basedȱ onȱ theoriesȱ rejectedȱ inȱ ourȱ 1 As he explains in the petition, ““Whileȱitȱmayȱbeȱthatȱsomeȱnumberȱofȱattorneysȱwhoȱbringȱclassȱactionsȱseekȱmerelyȱtoȱ fattenȱtheirȱpocketsȱatȱtheȱexpenseȱofȱtheirȱclients,ȱcounselȱhereinȱcannotȱbeȱcountedȱamongȱthem.ȱSinceȱ1983—overȱ theȱcourseȱofȱalmostȱfortyȱyearsȱ[actuallyȱjustȱ27ȱyears]—Plaintiff’sȱcounselȱhasȱtakenȱonȱtoughȱbattlesȱagainstȱdifficultȱ defendantsȱonȱdifficultȱissuesȱinȱclass,ȱderivative,ȱandȱpublicȱinterestȱcases….ȱMoreover,ȱIȱhaveȱrunȱforȱpublicȱoffice,ȱ always,ȱonȱplatformsȱthatȱchallengedȱtheȱstatusȱquoȱinȱourȱstate,ȱandȱwhenȱIȱhaveȱsucceededȱfinancially,ȱIȱhaveȱusedȱ thatȱforȱtheȱpublicȱgoodȱasȱwell….ȱInȱ2009,ȱIȱfoundedȱandȱfundedȱtheȱCenterȱforȱOpenȱGovernmentȱlawȱclinicȱatȱIITȱ ChicagoȬKentȱCollegeȱofȱLaw,ȱwhichȱuniquelyȱassistsȱindividualsȱinȱgainingȱaccessȱtoȱtheirȱgovernment,ȱgenerallyȱ underȱtheȱFreedomȱofȱInformationȱandȱOpenȱMeetingsȱActs,ȱwhereȱcurrentlyȱsixȱcasesȱareȱproceeding”ȱ(emphasisȱinȱ original). 3 decision.ȱAndȱitȱignoresȱthatȱtheȱpressuresȱonȱSearsȱtoȱsettleȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱKrislov’sȱonslaughtȱofȱ litigationȱamountsȱtoȱirreparableȱharm;ȱweȱexplainedȱthatȱ“thereȱisȱnoȱwayȱinȱwhichȱSearsȱcanȱ recoupȱ theȱ expenseȱ ofȱ respondingȱ toȱ Murray’sȱ extravagantȱ discoveryȱ requestsȱ andȱ ofȱ filingȱ preclusionȱdefensesȱagainstȱduplicativeȱclassȱactionsȱinȱotherȱstates.ȱTheȱharmȱitȱfacesȱfromȱtheȱ denialȱ ofȱ theȱ injunctionȱ isȱ irreparableȱ andȱ itsȱ remedyȱ atȱ lawȱ againstȱ settlementȱ extortionȱ nonexistent.”ȱ Theȱ petitionȱ states,ȱ withoutȱ substantiation,ȱ thatȱ “thisȱ caseȱ wasȱ broughtȱ byȱ aȱ highlyȱ educatedȱ metallurgicȱ engineer,ȱ Stevenȱ Thorogoodȱ (‘Thorogood’),ȱ whoȱ carefullyȱ evaluatedȱ hisȱ claimsȱ againstȱ Searsȱ beforeȱ takingȱ action.”ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ thisȱ isȱ true,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ suggestionȱ thatȱ Murray,ȱtheȱnamedȱplaintiffȱinȱtheȱcopycatȱaction,ȱhasȱanyȱrelevantȱbackgroundȱthatȱmightȱhaveȱ helpedȱhimȱtoȱ“carefullyȱevaluateȱhisȱclaimsȱagainstȱSearsȱbeforeȱtakingȱaction.”ȱ TheȱfocusȱofȱKrislov’sȱconcernȱisȱlanguageȱinȱourȱopinionȱthatȱheȱregardsȱasȱadȱhominem.ȱ Heȱ insistsȱ thatȱ “theȱ toneȱ andȱ rampantȱ mischaracterizationsȱ ofȱ theȱ opinionȱ mustȱ beȱ modifiedȱ evenȱifȱtheȱconclusionȱremains,ȱbecauseȱtheȱopinionȱunjustifiablyȱportraysȱtheȱcaseȱasȱmeritless,ȱ lawyerȬdrivenȱ litigation,ȱ anȱ accusationȱ thoroughlyȱ beliedȱ byȱ theȱ recordȱ andȱ theȱ distinguishedȱ careersȱofȱtheȱlawyersȱinvolved….ȱ[T]heȱmeritsȱofȱtheȱclaims,ȱtheȱsuitabilityȱofȱcertifyingȱtheȱcaseȱ asȱaȱclassȱactionȱandȱtheȱrefusalȱtoȱenjoinȱplaintiff’sȱCaliforniaȬonlyȱstateȱclassȱactionȱhaveȱbeenȱ legitimizedȱ byȱ twoȱ independentȱ federalȱ districtȱ courts.ȱ Thus,ȱ toȱ disparageȱ theȱ meritsȱ orȱ professionalȱ motivationsȱ ofȱ theȱ partiesȱ orȱ theirȱ counselȱ [i.e.,ȱ Krislovȱ andȱ Boling]ȱ isȱ unjustifiedȱ andȱmustȱbeȱcorrectedȱbecauseȱitȱrunsȱafoulȱofȱtheȱCodeȱofȱConductȱforȱUnitedȱStatesȱJudges.”ȱ Hisȱspecificȱconcernȱisȱwithȱtheȱphrasesȱ“settlementȱextortion,”ȱ“nearȬfrivolous,”ȱ“pugnacious,”ȱ “pertinaciousȱtoȱaȱfault,”ȱandȱ“aȱnuisance”ȱthatȱappearȱinȱtheȱopinion.ȱHeȱignoresȱtheȱevidenceȱ andȱ analysisȱ thatȱ supportsȱ theseȱ characterizations,ȱ andȱ similarȱ characterizationsȱ byȱ otherȱ judges,ȱ andȱ commentators,ȱ concernedȱ withȱ classȱ actionsȱ thatȱ areȱ believedȱ toȱ beȱ abusive.ȱ Heȱ ignoresȱtheȱrightȱandȱindeedȱtheȱdutyȱofȱjudgesȱtoȱcriticizeȱlawyersȱwhoȱtryȱtheȱpatienceȱofȱotherȱ membersȱofȱtheȱbar,ȱandȱtheȱcourts.ȱ Krislovȱ criticizesȱ whatȱ heȱ callsȱ “theȱ Panel’sȱ choiceȱ toȱ personallyȱ attackȱ Plaintiff’sȱ counselȱ [himself],ȱinȱlieuȱofȱrecognizingȱtheȱsoundȱdiscretionȱofȱtwoȱfederalȱdistrictȱcourts”ȱ(emphasisȱinȱ original).ȱ Theȱ opinionȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theȱ districtȱ judgeȱ inȱ Illinois,ȱ whoseȱ decisionȱ weȱ wereȱ reviewing,ȱ appearedȱ toȱ haveȱ overlookingȱ severalȱ relevantȱ considerations:ȱ “Heȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ believedȱthatȱpleadingȱresȱjudicataȱorȱcollateralȱestoppelȱalwaysȱprovidesȱadequateȱreliefȱagainstȱ vexatiousȱlitigation.ȱThisȱcaseȱshowsȱthatȱitȱdoesȱnot,ȱasȱdoȱtheȱsimilarȱcasesȱweȱcitedȱearlierȱandȱ theȱ casesȱ thatȱ sayȱ thatȱ enjoiningȱ vexatiousȱ litigationȱ isȱ preferableȱ toȱ theȱ harassmentȱ ofȱ anȱ expensive,ȱtimeȬconsumingȱprocedureȱtoȱproveȱ[aȱdefendant’s]ȱresȱjudicataȱorȱestoppelȱclaimsȱinȱ anotherȱ court.”ȱ Andȱ theȱ districtȱ judgeȱ inȱ California—whoseȱ ruling,ȱ toȱ repeat,ȱ cannotȱ beȱ appealed,ȱevenȱthough,ȱifȱitȱstands,ȱitȱforcesȱSearsȱtoȱengageȱinȱcostlyȱdiscovery,ȱasȱemphasizedȱ byȱBolingȱinȱurgingȱaȱsettlementȱfavorableȱtoȱtheȱclass—wasȱconfusedȱaboutȱtheȱrecord,ȱasȱourȱ opinionȱexplains.ȱ Krislovȱsaysȱthatȱ“Sears’ȱresortȱtoȱthisȱCircuitȱforȱtheȱpreclusiveȱshotȱisȱtransparentȱforumȱ shopping,ȱlookingȱforȱthisȱCourt’sȱderisoryȱviewȱofȱtheȱclaimȱtoȱinfluenceȱitȱintoȱbindingȱallȱclassȱ membersȱ nationwide,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ Ninthȱ Circuit’sȱ standardsȱ areȱ decidedlyȱ moreȱ favorableȱ toȱ plaintiffs’ȱclaims.”ȱThisȱisȱwhatȱisȱknownȱasȱchutzpah,ȱsinceȱKrislovȱbroughtȱhisȱcopycatȱsuitȱinȱ Californiaȱbecause,ȱasȱheȱsaysȱunguardedly,ȱ“theȱNinthȱCircuit’sȱstandardsȱareȱdecidedlyȱmoreȱ 4 favorableȱ toȱ plaintiffsȱ claims.”ȱ Searsȱ wasȱ notȱ engagedȱ inȱ forumȱ shopping.ȱ Onlyȱ oneȱ forumȱ offeredȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ relief.ȱ Becauseȱ itȱ couldȱ notȱ appealȱ theȱ interlocutoryȱ orderȱ ofȱ theȱ Californiaȱjudge,ȱtheȱonlyȱplaceȱtoȱgoȱtoȱseekȱreliefȱagainstȱbeingȱsuedȱallȱoverȱtheȱcountryȱonȱ frivolousȱgroundsȱaimedȱatȱsecuringȱaȱsettlementȱwasȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱinȱIllinois.ȱ Krislovȱsays:ȱ“IfȱtheȱlogicȱofȱRhoneȬPoulencȱ[InȱreȱRhoneȬPoulencȱRorer,ȱInc.,ȱ51ȱF.3dȱ1293ȱ(7thȱ Cir.ȱ 1995)]ȱ remainsȱ accurate,ȱ thenȱ Searsȱ hadȱ anȱ adequateȱ remedyȱ toȱ seekȱ mandamusȱ inȱ theȱ NinthȱCircuit,ȱoverȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱCalifornia’sȱdenialȱofȱDefendants’ȱMotionȱtoȱStrike.”ȱ Thisȱmissesȱtheȱpoint:ȱtheȱAllȱWritsȱActȱpermitsȱcourtsȱtoȱissueȱinjunctiveȱreliefȱtoȱprotectȱandȱ effectuateȱtheirȱownȱjudgments,ȱsoȱthatȱwinningȱpartiesȱwillȱnotȱbeȱforcedȱtoȱlitigateȱaȱdefenseȱofȱ collateralȱ estoppelȱ (orȱ seekȱ mandamusȱ orders)ȱ inȱ everyȱ subsequentȱ forumȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ areȱ harassedȱwithȱtheȱsameȱlegalȱclaimȱuntilȱtheyȱcryȱ“Uncle!”ȱ Heȱ says:ȱ “Justȱ asȱ theȱ courtȱ isȱ entitledȱ toȱ beȱ treatedȱ withȱ theȱ respectȱ [sic]ȱ byȱ litigantsȱ andȱ theirȱ counsel,ȱ litigantsȱ andȱ theirȱ counselȱ areȱ entitledȱ toȱ beȱ treatedȱ withȱ respectȱ byȱ theȱ court.”ȱ Well,ȱheȱdoesn’tȱtreatȱusȱwithȱmuchȱrespect,ȱstatingȱinȱtheȱpetitionȱforȱrehearingȱenȱbancȱthatȱheȱ filedȱafterȱourȱfirstȱopinion:ȱ“theȱPanel’sȱopinionȱreadsȱmoreȱlikeȱaȱpostingȱinȱitsȱauthor’sȱwellȬ knownȱ blogȱ (www.beckerȬposnerȬblog.com),ȱ declaringȱ itsȱ viewȱ ofȱ classȱ actions,ȱ mischaracterizingȱclassȱcounselȱasȱbeingȱinherentlyȱcorruptedȱbyȱtheȱinducementȱtoȱsellȱoutȱitsȱ clients’ȱ smallȱ claimsȱ forȱ itsȱ ownȱ feesȱ obtainedȱ throughȱ aȱ collusiveȱ settlement….ȱ [T]heȱ panelȱ opinionȱ blatantlyȱ ignoredȱ theȱ recordȱ evidenceȱ andȱ substitutedȱ theȱ authoringȱ judge’sȱ personalȱ economicȱ theoriesȱ andȱ baselessȱ factualȱ declarationsȱ forȱ theȱ developedȱ record.”ȱ Andȱ inȱ hisȱ currentȱpetitionȱheȱsaysȱthatȱ“theȱCourt’sȱclearlyȱprejudicedȱopinionȱpresentsȱanȱunsupported,ȱ opȬedȱ styleȱ portrayalȱ ofȱ classȱ actionȱ attorneysȱ thatȱ paintsȱ withȱ aȱ brushȱ soȱ broadȱ thatȱ itȱ demonizesȱ allȱ classȱ actionȱ attorneysȱ asȱ inherentlyȱ motivatedȱ toȱ sellȱ outȱ theirȱ clientsȱ forȱ smallȱ recoveries,ȱtoȱobtainȱlargeȱfees,ȱandȱgoesȱwellȱoverȱtheȱtopȱinȱitsȱcharacterizationȱofȱundersignedȱ counsel’sȱactionsȱandȱmotivation.ȱMoreover,ȱitȱappearsȱtoȱrunȱafoulȱofȱCanonȱ3ȱofȱtheȱCodeȱofȱ ConductȱforȱUnitedȱStatesȱJudges….ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱPanel’sȱroleȱasȱtheȱselfȬassuredȱSimonȱCowellȱ ofȱtheȱCircuitsȱdemeansȱnotȱjustȱus,ȱbutȱtheȱCourtȱasȱwell”ȱ(emphasisȱinȱoriginal).ȱ (Who,ȱyouȱask,ȱisȱSimonȱCowell?ȱHeȱwasȱtheȱcantankerousȱjudgeȱonȱ“AmericanȱIdol.”ȱSeeȱ www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3cTEQFP3VQȱ(visitedȱDec.ȱ1,ȱ2010).)ȱ ȱ Attorneyȱ Krislovȱ saysȱ thatȱ theȱ panel’sȱ “exceedinglyȱ facileȱ approachȱ disregardsȱ theȱ highlyȱdesirableȱroleȱofȱpersuasiveȱauthorityȱandȱitsȱunderlyingȱreasoningȱinȱtheȱAmericanȱlegalȱ system….ȱ Inȱ theȱ realȱ world,ȱ whicheverȱ wayȱ theȱ firstȱ decisionȱ goesȱ standsȱ asȱ someȱ persuasiveȱ authorityȱ forȱ subsequentȱ ones.ȱ Cumulatively,ȱ theȱ decisionalȱ tideȱ ofȱ opinionsȱ wouldȱ trendȱ towardȱ oneȱ competingȱ theoryȱ untilȱ oneȱ orȱ theȱ otherȱ wasȱ ultimatelyȱ acceptedȱ asȱ eitherȱ consensus,ȱ orȱ simplyȱ correct,ȱ orȱ correctȱ inȱ thatȱ jurisdiction.”ȱ Translated,ȱ thisȱ meansȱ thatȱ Krislov’sȱstrategyȱisȱtoȱbringȱidenticalȱorȱsimilarȱsuitsȱinȱdifferentȱjurisdictionsȱuntilȱheȱwinsȱone,ȱ thenȱuseȱtheȱjudgmentȱinȱthatȱsuitȱasȱresȱjudicataȱorȱcollateralȱestoppelȱinȱtheȱnextȱsuit,ȱandȱtheȱ next,ȱandȱtheȱnext,ȱuntilȱSearsȱgivesȱup.ȱAsȱweȱnotedȱinȱourȱopinion,ȱKrislovȱwantedȱaȱjudgmentȱ (ratherȱthanȱdismissalȱonȱgroundsȱofȱmootness,ȱSearsȱhavingȱofferedȱaȱnuisanceȱsettlementȱwellȱ inȱexcessȱofȱtheȱmaximumȱamountȱofȱmoneyȱthatȱThorogood’sȱindividualȱclaimȱwasȱworth)ȱsoȱ thatȱ heȱ couldȱ useȱ itȱ toȱ blockȱ Searsȱ fromȱ defendingȱ theȱ nextȱ suit,ȱ whichȱ turnedȱ outȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ Californiaȱsuit.ȱ 5 “Zestingȱtoȱsmearȱtheȱplaintiff’sȱcounsel,”ȱsaysȱKrislov,ȱ”theȱPanel’sȱcharacterizationȱofȱtheȱ letterȱ[theȱreferenceȱisȱtoȱcocounselȱBoling’sȱletterȱtoȱSears,ȱwhichȱweȱreprintedȱasȱanȱappendixȱ toȱourȱopinion]ȱasȱ‘settlementȱextortion’ȱlacksȱsupportȱinȱtheȱrecord,ȱsameȱasȱtheȱPanelȱauthor’sȱ declarationȱthatȱMr.ȱBoling’sȱ‘oliveȱbranch’ȱletterȱsoughtȱtoȱsellȱoutȱtheȱclass….ȱTheȱletterȱsimplyȱ detailsȱthatȱtheȱcaseȱisȱgoingȱforward,ȱdiscoveryȱwillȱlikelyȱproduceȱmoreȱdamagingȱevidence,ȱ whichȱ couldȱ generateȱ greaterȱ damages,ȱ andȱ plaintiffsȱ areȱ offeringȱ anȱ ‘oliveȱ branch,’ȱ exploringȱ defendants’ȱappetiteȱforȱnegotiatingȱanȱagreedȱresolution.ȱThereȱisȱnothingȱimplyingȱaȱsellout.ȱ Instead,ȱ theȱ letterȱ proposesȱ discussingȱ aȱ solutionȱ thatȱ wouldȱ beȱ inȱ theȱ bestȱ interestȱ ofȱ bothȱ sides—preciselyȱwhatȱcounselȱareȱoftenȱdirectedȱtoȱdoȱbyȱcourtsȱallȱoverȱtheȱcountry.”ȱThisȱisȱaȱ joke.ȱ Bothȱ partiesȱ knowȱ theȱ letterȱ isȱ aȱ demandȱ forȱ favorableȱ settlementȱ terms.ȱ Theȱ letterȱ itselfȱ contradictsȱ Krislov’sȱ claim.ȱ Itȱ declaresȱ thatȱ “discoveryȱ willȱ likelyȱ produceȱ moreȱ damagingȱ evidence,ȱ whichȱ couldȱ generateȱ greaterȱ damages….ȱ [I]fȱ plaintiffȱ isȱ successfulȱ onȱ aȱ motionȱ forȱ classȱ certification,ȱ theȱ courtȱ asȱ theȱ gateȱ keeperȱ willȱ demandȱ aȱ moreȱ significantȱ recoveryȱ forȱ resolution.”ȱ Krislovȱisȱconcernedȱwithȱharshȱlanguageȱinȱourȱopinion,ȱbutȱoverstatesȱtheȱcaseȱwhenȱheȱ decriesȱ “characterizationȱ ofȱ plaintiffȱ classȱ actionȱ lawyersȱ asȱ inherentlyȱ corruptȱ andȱ motivatedȱ primarilyȱtoȱsellȱoutȱtheȱclassȱinȱorderȱtoȱgainȱlargeȱfees.”ȱWhatȱweȱsaidȱwasȱthatȱtheȱstructureȱofȱ classȱ actionsȱ underȱ Ruleȱ 23ȱ ofȱ theȱ federalȱ rulesȱ givesȱ classȱ actionȱ lawyersȱ anȱ incentiveȱ toȱ negotiateȱsettlementsȱthatȱenrichȱthemselvesȱbutȱgiveȱscantȱrewardȱtoȱclassȱmembers,ȱwhileȱatȱ theȱsameȱtimeȱtheȱburdenȱofȱrespondingȱtoȱclassȱplaintiffs’ȱdiscoveryȱdemandsȱgivesȱdefendantsȱ anȱincentiveȱtoȱagreeȱtoȱearlyȱsettlementȱthatȱmayȱtreatȱtheȱclassȱactionȱlawyersȱbetterȱthanȱtheȱ class.ȱClassȱactionȱattorneysȱhaveȱanȱ“inherentȱmotivation”ȱtoȱenrichȱthemselvesȱatȱtheȱexpenseȱ ofȱ theȱ classȱ (andȱ withȱ theȱ connivanceȱ ofȱ defendants),ȱ butȱ motivationȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ synonymȱ forȱ action;ȱ anyȱ actualȱ corruptionȱ orȱ sellingȱ outȱ isȱ gaugedȱ caseȱ byȱ case.ȱ Theȱ Bolingȱ letterȱ isȱ someȱ indicationȱthatȱtheȱpresentȱcaseȱisȱsuchȱaȱcase.ȱ Theȱcriticismsȱinȱourȱopinionȱofȱtheȱtacticsȱemployedȱbyȱsomeȱclassȱactionȱlawyersȱareȱnotȱ criticismsȱmadeȱbyȱjudgesȱalone,ȱletȱaloneȱbyȱjudgesȱofȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuitȱaloneȱorȱmembersȱofȱ thisȱpanelȱalone.ȱOurȱopinionȱgaveȱsomeȱexamples:ȱ“Theȱdefendantȱwantsȱtoȱminimizeȱoutflowȱ ofȱ expendituresȱ andȱ theȱ classȱ counselȱ wantsȱ toȱ increaseȱ inflowȱ ofȱ attorneys’ȱ fees.ȱ Bothȱ canȱ achieveȱtheirȱgoalsȱifȱtheyȱcolludeȱtoȱsacrificeȱtheȱinterestsȱofȱtheȱclass.”ȱChristopherȱR.ȱLeslie,ȱ “TheȱSignificanceȱofȱSilence:ȱCollectiveȱActionȱProblemsȱandȱClassȱActionȱSettlements,”ȱ59ȱFla.ȱ L.ȱRev.ȱ71,ȱ79–81ȱ(2007)ȱ(footnoteȱomitted);ȱseeȱalsoȱJohnȱC.ȱCoffee,ȱJr.,ȱ“LitigationȱGovernance:ȱ Takingȱ Accountabilityȱ Seriously,”ȱ 110ȱ Colum.ȱ L.ȱ Rev.ȱ 288,ȱ 326–27ȱ (2010).ȱ Twoȱ ofȱ theȱ examplesȱ wereȱ opinionsȱ byȱ Judgeȱ Henryȱ Friendly,ȱ theȱ veryȱ respectedȱ Secondȱ Circuitȱ judge:ȱ Saylorȱ v.ȱ Lindsley,ȱ456ȱF.2dȱ896,ȱ900–01ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ1972);ȱAlleghanyȱCorp.ȱv.ȱKirby,ȱ333ȱF.2dȱ327,ȱ347ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ 1964)ȱ(dissentingȱopinion).ȱWeȱgaveȱadditionalȱexamplesȱinȱourȱfirstȱopinionȱinȱtheȱclothesȱdryerȱ litigation:ȱ Parkerȱ v.ȱ Timeȱ Warnerȱ Entertainmentȱ Co.,ȱ L.P.,ȱ 331ȱ F.3dȱ 13,ȱ 22ȱ (2dȱ Cir.ȱ 2003);ȱ Newtonȱv.ȱMerrillȱ Lynch,ȱ Pierce,ȱ Fennerȱ &ȱ Smith,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 259ȱ F.3dȱ 154,ȱ 165–68ȱ (3dȱ Cir.ȱ 2001);ȱ Jeffreyȱ W.ȱ Stempel,ȱ “Classȱ Actionsȱ andȱ Limitedȱ Vision,”ȱ 83ȱ Wash.ȱ U.ȱ L.Q.ȱ 1127,ȱ 1213–14ȱ(2005);ȱ Bruceȱ L.ȱ Hayȱ &ȱ DavidȱRosenberg,ȱ“’Sweetheart’ȱandȱ‘Blackmail’ȱSettlementsȱinȱClassȱActions,”ȱ75ȱNotreȱDameȱL.ȱ Rev.ȱ1377,ȱ1389–92ȱ(2000);ȱBruceȱL.ȱHay,ȱ“AsymmetricȱRewards:ȱWhyȱClassȱActionsȱ(May)ȱSettleȱ forȱTooȱLittle,”ȱ48ȱHastingsȱL.J.ȱ479,ȱ485–89ȱ(1997);ȱSusanȱP.ȱKoniakȱ&ȱGeorgeȱM.ȱCohen,ȱ“Underȱ CloakȱofȱSettlement,”ȱ82ȱVa.ȱL.ȱRev.ȱ1051,ȱ1053–57ȱ(1996)ȱ(describingȱtheȱclassȱactionȱasȱ“lawyerȱ 6 selfȬdealingȱ onȱ aȱ grandȱ scale,”ȱ id.ȱ atȱ 1053);ȱ Jonathanȱ R.ȱ Maceyȱ &ȱ Geoffreyȱ P.ȱ Miller,ȱ “Theȱ Plaintiff’sȱ Attorney’sȱ Roleȱ inȱ Classȱ Actionȱ andȱ Derivativeȱ Litigation,”ȱ 58ȱ U.ȱ Chi.ȱ L.ȱ Rev.ȱ 1,ȱ 22– 26ȱ(1991).ȱ Andȱ theȱ criticismsȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ otherȱ opinionsȱ ofȱ thisȱ court.ȱ See,ȱ e.g.,ȱ Szaboȱ v.ȱ BridgeportȱMachines,ȱInc.,ȱ249ȱF.3dȱ672ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2001);ȱBlairȱv.ȱEquifaxȱCheckȱServices,ȱInc.,ȱ 181ȱ F.3dȱ 832,ȱ 834ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 1999);ȱ Vollmerȱ v.ȱ Selden,ȱ 350ȱ F.3dȱ 656,ȱ 660ȱ (7thȱ Cir.ȱ 2003);ȱ Inȱ reȱ RhoneȬPoulencȱRorer,ȱInc.,ȱsupra,ȱ51ȱF.3dȱatȱ1298–99.ȱ Wantȱmore?ȱThereȱisȱplentyȱmore,ȱincludingȱreferencesȱinȱSupremeȱCourtȱasȱwellȱasȱcourtȱ ofȱ appealsȱ opinionsȱ toȱ theȱ dangerȱ ofȱ collusionȱ betweenȱ classȱ actionȱ lawyersȱ andȱ defendants’ȱ lawyers.ȱStoneridgeȱInvestmentȱPartners,ȱLLCȱv.ȱScientificȬAtlanta,ȱ552ȱU.S.ȱ148,ȱ163–64ȱ(2008);ȱOrtizȱ v.ȱFibreboardȱCorp.,ȱ527ȱU.S.ȱ815,ȱ852–53ȱ(1999);ȱAmChemȱProducts,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱWindsor,ȱȱ521ȱU.S.ȱ591,ȱ 621–22ȱ(1997);ȱBlueȱChipȱStampsȱv.ȱManorȱDrugȱStores,ȱ421ȱU.S.ȱ723,ȱ740–41ȱ(1975);ȱSullivanȱv.ȱDBȱ Investments,ȱInc.,ȱ613ȱF.3dȱ134,ȱ149–50ȱ(3dȱCir.ȱ2010);ȱInȱreȱGeneralȱMotorsȱCorp.ȱPickȬUpȱTruckȱFuelȱ Tankȱ Productsȱ Liabilityȱ Litigation,ȱ 55ȱ F.3dȱ 768,ȱ 802ȱ (3dȱ Cir.ȱ 1995);ȱ Weinbergerȱ v.ȱ Greatȱ Northernȱ NekoosaȱCorp.,ȱ925ȱF.2dȱ518,ȱ524ȱ(1stȱCir.ȱ1991);ȱInȱreȱAgentȱOrangeȱProductȱLiabilityȱLitigation,ȱ818ȱ F.2dȱ216,ȱ223–25ȱ(2dȱCir.ȱ1987);ȱPiambinoȱv.ȱBailey,ȱ757ȱF.2dȱ1112,ȱ1139ȱandȱn.ȱ68ȱ(11thȱCir.ȱ1985);ȱ Sheltonȱ v.ȱ Pargo,ȱ Inc.,ȱ 582ȱ F.2dȱ 1298,ȱ 1306–07ȱ (4thȱ Cir.ȱ 1978);ȱ Pettwayȱ v.ȱ Americanȱ Castȱ Ironȱ Pipeȱ Co.,ȱ 576ȱ F.2dȱ 1157,ȱ1169ȱ (5thȱ Cir.ȱ1978).ȱ Thereȱareȱ alsoȱ referencesȱ toȱsettlementȱ extortion:ȱ Jonesȱ MotorȱCo.ȱv.ȱHoltkamp,ȱLiese,ȱBeckemeierȱ&ȱChildress,ȱP.C.,ȱ197ȱF.3dȱ1190,ȱ1193ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1999);ȱByrneȱ v.ȱNezhat,ȱ261ȱF.3dȱ1075,ȱ1129–31ȱ(11thȱCir.ȱ2001);ȱDuhaimeȱv.ȱJohnȱHancockȱMutualȱLifeȱIns.ȱCo.,ȱ 183ȱF.3dȱ1,ȱ6–7ȱ(1stȱCir.ȱ1999).ȱ Neitherȱ theȱ judgesȱ onȱ thisȱ panelȱ norȱ otherȱ federalȱ judgesȱ soȱ farȱ asȱ weȱ areȱ awareȱ haveȱ deniedȱthatȱtheȱclassȱactionȱisȱaȱworthwhileȱdevice,ȱandȱindeedȱisȱindispensableȱforȱtheȱlitigationȱ ofȱmanyȱmeritoriousȱclaims.ȱButȱlikeȱmanyȱotherȱgoodȱthingsȱitȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱabuse.ȱItȱhasȱbeenȱ abusedȱinȱtheȱstainlessȱsteelȱclothesȱdryerȱlitigation.ȱ Theȱpetitionȱforȱrehearingȱisȱ denied.ȱNoȱjudgeȱofȱthisȱcourtȱinȱregularȱactiveȱserviceȱhavingȱ requestedȱaȱvoteȱonȱtheȱpetitionȱforȱrehearingȱenȱbanc,ȱrehearingȱenȱbancȱisȱalsoȱdenied.ȱ