WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – The U.S. Supreme Court will not review a federal appeals court ruling allowing a class action lawsuit that potentially includes hundreds of millions of members and seeks more than $9 billion in damages to proceed against a group of flexible foam manufacturers.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
The nation’s high court denied a writ of certiorari filed by Carpenter Co., Woodbridge Foam Corp. and others in a 14-page order list released last week. Justices did not provide a reason for their decision.
The companies filed their petition with the court in November.
The case, Carpenter Co. Et Al v. Ace Foam Inc. Et Al and Greg Beastrom Et Al, involves allegations of decades-long price-fixing among numerous polyurethane foam manufacturers.
Polyurethane foam is a material used in mattresses, pillows and upholstered furniture, among other things.
The companies claim there isn’t enough in common between various purchasers of the foam products to allow the class action to proceed.
“This gargantuan class action — which is likely the largest ever certified and upheld by a federal court of appeals — sweeps together dissimilar purchasers of a vast number of distinct products sold by disparate groups of Defendants at varying prices in a variety of markets over more than a decade,” lawyers for the companies wrote in their petition to the Supreme Court. “They cover a kaleidoscope of different purchasers and products, ranging from furniture manufacturers purchasing seat padding, to individuals buying foam pillows and hotel chains acquiring new mattresses. The only common thread is some connection to polyurethane foam, a truly ubiquitous product that is found in virtually every home, office and vehicle in America.
“Given the tremendous breadth of this class action, it is impossible to even ascertain whether a given purchase is traceable to any Defendant, let alone which purchasers suffered any injury or are entitled to any measure of damages, without resorting to fact-intensive individualized inquiries.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the company’s argument, upholding a district court’s certification of two classes.
From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by email at [email protected].
