Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Microsoft's petition for discretionary review of a district court order certifying a class in an indirect-purchaser antitrust action. The court held that abuse of discretion is the applicable standard when reviewing a court of appeals' decision under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01. It adopted nonexclusive factors for discretionary review of class-certification decisions, including potential case-ending effects, settlement pressure, and important legal issues, and concluded that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard of review applies when the Minnesota Supreme Court reviews the Court of Appeals' decision to grant or deny discretionary review of an interlocutory order under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01?
- What factors should the Minnesota Court of Appeals consider when deciding whether to exercise discretionary review of a class-certification order under Rule 105.01?
- Did the Court of Appeals abuse its discretion by denying Microsoft's petition for discretionary review of the district court's class-certification order?
Holdings
- The Minnesota Supreme Court reviews a Court of Appeals decision to grant or deny discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01 for abuse of discretion.
- The Court of Appeals should consider a nonexclusive list of factors when deciding whether to exercise discretionary review of a class-certification decision under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01: whether a questionable denial would be the death knell of plaintiffs' claims, whether a questionable grant would place inordinate pressure on the defendant to settle, and whether immediate appeal would resolve an important legal issue important to the particular litigation. The court should also consider the district court's discretion, the deferential appellate standard, the possibility of special compelling circumstances, and the policy against piecemeal appeals.
- The Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion by denying Microsoft's petition for discretionary review.
Key quotations
“We have extracted factors from the federal case law as well as some general principles.” (401-402)
“Most class certification decisions do not receive immediate appellate review and exercise of the discretionary power of review is the exception rather than the norm.” (402)
“Accordingly, given the court of appeals' broad discretion under Rule 105.01, our policy against piecemeal interlocutory appeals, and the fact that the court of appeals applied parts of two of our primary factors, we hold that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion when it denied Microsoft's petition for discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01.” (403)
Factual background
Gordon and other indirect purchasers alleged that Microsoft's monopoly and anticompetitive practices caused distributors to pay inflated prices for Microsoft operating-system software, which allegedly resulted in higher consumer prices. Gordon submitted an affidavit from economist Keith Leffler proposing an economic model and methodology for proving class-wide impact and damages. The district court certified the class despite Microsoft's dispute concerning the accuracy and applicability of that model.
Procedural history
Daniel Gordon filed a putative antitrust class action alleging that Microsoft charged artificially inflated prices for operating-system software and that overcharges were passed through distributors to indirect purchasers. The district court certified the class after considering an economist's proposed model for establishing class-wide impact and damages. Microsoft petitioned the court of appeals for discretionary review, but the court denied review. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that denial.