Judges: Easterbrook
Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit _ No. 14---3436 DENNIS ADKINS, et al., Plaintiffs---Appellees, and CONNIE CURTS, Intervening Plaintiff---Appellant, v. NESTLÉ PURINA PETCARE COMPANY and WAGGIN’ TRAIN, LLC, Defendants---Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 12 C 2871 — Robert W. Gettleman, Judge. _ ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 2015 — DECIDED MARCH 2, 2015 _ Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and SYKE
Summary: In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit _ No. 14---3436 DENNIS ADKINS, et al., Plaintiffs---Appellees, and CONNIE CURTS, Intervening Plaintiff---Appellant, v. NESTLÉ PURINA PETCARE COMPANY and WAGGIN’ TRAIN, LLC, Defendants---Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 12 C 2871 — Robert W. Gettleman, Judge. _ ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 2015 — DECIDED MARCH 2, 2015 _ Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and SYKES..
More
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 14-‐‑3436
DENNIS ADKINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs-‐‑Appellees,
and
CONNIE CURTS,
Intervening Plaintiff-‐‑Appellant,
v.
NESTLÉ PURINA PETCARE COMPANY and WAGGIN’ TRAIN,
LLC,
Defendants-‐‑Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 12 C 2871 — Robert W. Gettleman, Judge.
____________________
ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 2015 — DECIDED MARCH 2, 2015
____________________
Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs contend in this suit,
which the district court has certified as a nationwide class
action, that Nestlé and Waggin’ Train sold dog treats that
injured the dogs. The parties have reached a settlement, to
2 No. 14-‐‑3436
which the district court has given tentative approval pend-‐‑
ing a fairness hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). That hear-‐‑
ing has been scheduled for June 23, 2015. The order tenta-‐‑
tively approving the settlement has one non-‐‑tentative provi-‐‑
sion: It enjoins all class members from prosecuting litigation
about the dog treats in any other forum.
One case affected by this injunction has been pending for
two years in Missouri, and it was certified as a statewide
class action before the federal suit was certified as a national
class action. It was on a schedule leading to a trial in May
2015 when the injunction stopped it cold. Connie Curts, the
certified representative of the Missouri class, intervened to
protest the federal injunction.† She contends in this appeal
that the district court has violated 28 U.S.C. §2283, the Anti-‐‑
Injunction Act, which provides: “A court of the United States
may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State
court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or
where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or ef-‐‑
fectuate its judgments.”
The parties (the representatives of the federal class plus
Nestlé and Waggin’ Train) contend that the injunction is
“necessary in aid of [the district court’s] jurisdiction”. Curts
† At least she tried to intervene. The district judge denied the motion
with a brief oral statement. We have directed district courts to allow in-‐‑
tervention under circumstances such as these. See, e.g., Crawford v.
Equifax Payment Services, Inc., 201 F.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2000); Robert F.
Booth Trust v. Crowley, 687 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 2012). The district court did
not mention either of these decisions (or any other case, for that matter).
Still, the error is not fatal, given Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002),
and United States v. Kirschenbaum, 156 F.3d 784, 794 (7th Cir. 1998) (a non-‐‑
party bound by an injunction is entitled to appeal).
No. 14-‐‑3436 3
maintains, to the contrary, that only federal actions in rem—
that is, suits about the disposition of specific property—
come within the scope of the “aid of jurisdiction” exception,
because only then could a state court’s action override the
federal tribunal by moving or destroying the property on
which federal authority depends.
But when we sought to learn the district court’s view of
this subject, we were stymied. The district judge has not ex-‐‑
plained why he entered the injunction. There are some hints,
but nothing more. That won’t do. Rule 65(d)(1)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every order
issuing an injunction must “state the reasons why it issued”.
At oral argument, counsel for Nestlé insisted that the
judge had provided reasons and referred us to six pages of
the transcript of a hearing at which the settlement was dis-‐‑
cussed. According to counsel, the district judge found that
continuation of the Missouri action “has a great potential of
tanking the entire settlement”. We’ll return to the question
whether this has anything to do with “jurisdiction.” For the
moment, it is enough to observe that Nestlé’s lawyer was
quoting a statement by Morton Denlow, a retired magistrate
judge who in a private capacity had mediated the negotia-‐‑
tions, not a statement by the district judge.
And if we understand the judge as sharing Mr. Denlow’s
view, that would not satisfy Rule 65(d)(1)(A). Before issuing
an injunction, a judge must identify the appropriate legal
standard and make the findings of law and fact required by
that standard. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction
must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that
he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of pre-‐‑
liminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor,
4 No. 14-‐‑3436
and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
The district judge did not discuss these subjects, and alt-‐‑
hough Mr. Denlow’s statement may be relevant it is not con-‐‑
clusive on any of them. Take irreparable injury: It is estab-‐‑
lished that the costs of ongoing litigation (the result if the
settlement collapses) are not irreparable injury. See, e.g., Pe-‐‑
troleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 304 U.S.
209, 222 (1938); Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co.,
415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974); FTC v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232,
244 (1980). More: an injunction that halts state litigation is
permissible only if it satisfies §2283 in addition to the tradi-‐‑
tional factors that Winter catalogs. The district judge was si-‐‑
lent about everything that matters.
The immediate question we must resolve, therefore, is
whether to vacate the injunction and remand for further pro-‐‑
ceedings, or to reverse outright. We think the latter step ap-‐‑
propriate, for two reasons: first, the final hearing is sched-‐‑
uled for June, and further proceedings in the district court
(potentially followed by another appeal) could leave the
state litigation in limbo until then, disrupting the state case
almost as effectively as an injunction; second, in supporting
this injunction the parties do not even contend that it is “nec-‐‑
essary” in aid of the district court’s “jurisdiction.” Instead
the parties contend that, if the Missouri case proceeds to fi-‐‑
nal decision before June 23, then their settlement must be re-‐‑
negotiated and may well collapse. We take that as a given.
Still, what has that to do with the federal court’s “jurisdic-‐‑
tion”? And why is preserving a particular settlement “neces-‐‑
sary” to federal jurisdiction?
No. 14-‐‑3436 5
Many decisions by the Supreme Court over the last 30
years tell us that “jurisdiction” means adjudicatory compe-‐‑
tence. See, e.g., Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154
(2010); Union Pacific R.R. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi-‐‑
neers, 558 U.S. 67 (2009); Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
455 U.S. 385 (1982). See also Minn-‐‑Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc.,
683 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc). These opinions show
that there is a fundamental difference between “jurisdiction”
and the many procedural or substantive rules that determine
how cases are resolved. A court has “jurisdiction” when it
has been designated by statute as an appropriate forum for a
dispute of a given sort; other rules are non-‐‑jurisdictional.
No one doubts that the district court has subject-‐‑matter
jurisdiction over this litigation, and no one contends that tri-‐‑
al or judgment in the Missouri litigation could imperil the
district court’s ability and authority to adjudicate the federal
suit. If the settlement collapses, the court’s adjudicatory
competence remains. A need to adjudicate a suit on the mer-‐‑
its after settlement negotiations fail does not undermine the
nature or extent of a court’s jurisdiction. Yet if the Missouri
case cannot diminish federal jurisdiction, §2283 precludes an
injunction until the federal case reaches a final decision. (Af-‐‑
ter a final decision, an injunction could be appropriate to
protect the federal judgment, although class members who
opt out would remain entitled to pursue their own suits.)
Parallel state and federal litigation is common. The first
to reach final decision can affect the other, either through
rules of claim and issue preclusion (res judicata and collat-‐‑
eral estoppel) or through effects such as reducing the scope
of a class from 50 to 49 states. Yet the potential effect of one
suit on the other does not justify an injunction.
6 No. 14-‐‑3436
We have never viewed parallel in personam actions as interfering
with the jurisdiction of either court; as we stated in Kline v. Burke
Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226 (1922):
[A]n action brought to enforce [a personal liability] does not
tend to impair or defeat the jurisdiction of the court in which a
prior action for the same cause is pending. Each court is free
to proceed in its own way and in its own time, without ref-‐‑
erence to the proceedings in the other court. Whenever a
judgment is rendered in one of the courts and pleaded in the
other, the effect of that judgment is to be determined by the
application of the principles of res adjudicata … .” Id., at 230
(emphasis added).
No case of this Court has ever held that an injunction to “pre-‐‑
serve” a case or controversy fits within the “necessary in aid of
its jurisdiction” exception [to §2283]; neither have the parties di-‐‑
rected us to any other federal-‐‑court decisions so holding.
Vendo Co. v. Lektro-‐‑Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 642 (1977) (plu-‐‑
rality opinion). More recently, Sprint Communications, Inc. v.
Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013), held that parallel state and fed-‐‑
eral proceedings do not justify abstention by a federal court.
The Court thought that both should be allowed to proceed,
subject only to the equitable power of each tribunal to defer
its own proceedings in deference to a case that is farther
along. Nothing in Sprint or any other decision of the Su-‐‑
preme Court suggests that the court presiding over the case
likely to reach judgment second can jump the queue by en-‐‑
joining the suit that is likely to reach decision first. Our opin-‐‑
ion in Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Superior Court of Cali-‐‑
fornia, 326 F.3d 816, 825–27 (7th Cir. 2002), dealt with just
such a situation and held that the prospect of a state court
reaching decision first, making federal decision unnecessary
(or the federal case harder to adjudicate), does not justify a
federal injunction against the state litigation.
No. 14-‐‑3436 7
We therefore need not address Curts’s argument that on-‐‑
ly in rem proceedings can satisfy the “aid of jurisdiction”
clause in §2283. We can imagine extreme situations in which
a state could imperil a federal court’s adjudicatory power
over in personam actions. For example, suppose a state court
were to bar a necessary witness from attending a federal trial
or deposition; a federal injunction (or a writ of habeas cor-‐‑
pus) might be an authorized response. Winkler v. Eli Lilly &
Co., 101 F.3d 1196, 1202 (7th Cir. 1996), concludes that the
“aid of jurisdiction” clause may be invoked when an incon-‐‑
sistent decision by a state court would “render the exercise
of the federal court’s jurisdiction nugatory.”
The panel in Winkler thought that this might occur when
the federal litigation sought an injunction (as in school de-‐‑
segregation litigation); an order by the state court to do
something different from what the federal litigation sought
could undermine federal authority as a practical matter.
(Winkler itself entailed incompatible state and federal orders
about discovery management.) But nothing of the sort has
occurred here. Curts wants to litigate her own suit in Mis-‐‑
souri, not to stop the federal court from adjudicating the suit
pending before it, and the parties do not contend that there
is a significant prospect of inconsistent injunctions affecting
defendants’ future conduct. (Should that possibility be real-‐‑
ized, it can be dealt with.)
No matter what one makes of the word “jurisdiction” in
§2283, an injunction is proper only when “necessary” to pro-‐‑
tect federal jurisdiction. The parties argue that closing down
the Missouri case would be prudent, beneficial, helpful, and
so on; the unstated premise is that §2283 allows whatever a
federal court thinks is good litigation management. But
8 No. 14-‐‑3436
that’s not what “necessary” means. The Supreme Court told
us recently:
The statute … “is a necessary concomitant of the Framers’ deci-‐‑
sion to authorize, and Congress’ decision to implement, a dual
system of federal and state courts.” And the Act’s core message
is one of respect for state courts. The Act broadly commands that
those tribunals “shall remain free from interference by federal
courts.” That edict is subject to only “three specifically defined
exceptions.” And those exceptions, though designed for im-‐‑
portant purposes, “are narrow and are ‘not [to] be enlarged by
loose statutory construction.’” Indeed, “[a]ny doubts as to the
propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings
should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to pro-‐‑
ceed.”
Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368, 2375 (2011) (internal cita-‐‑
tions omitted). One reason why doubts must be resolved
against a federal injunction is the word “necessary”. Section
2283 leaves only limited opportunities for federal interven-‐‑
tion. In the main §2283 commits to the state court the ques-‐‑
tion whether it would be prudent, beneficial, or helpful to let
the federal case go first.
According to the parties, In re VMS Securities Litigation,
103 F.3d 1317 (7th Cir. 1996), shows that the district court’s
injunction is proper. Not at all. In VMS Securities the district
court issued an injunction to protect the final decision in a
class suit. That step was authorized by the relitigation excep-‐‑
tion to §2283. What is more, the parties had failed to raise
§2283 in the district court, and we held that this forfeited any
entitlement to rely on it in the court of appeals. 103 F.3d at
1326. Nothing in VMS Securities supports the propriety of an
injunction while the federal case remains in process.
No. 14-‐‑3436 9
Although the parties and Curts debate the significance of
many decisions outside the Seventh Circuit, those opinions
are so various that it would not be helpful to catalog them. It
is enough to say that, to the extent any of them supports in-‐‑
junctive relief before the settlement of a federal class action
has become final, it fails to discuss the Supreme Court’s un-‐‑
derstanding of “jurisdiction” and predates its reminder in
Bayer that doubts must be resolved in favor of allowing state
courts to proceed with litigation pending there.
Curts and the parties have locked horns on a number of
additional questions, such as whether it is appropriate to
certify a national class (as opposed to a number of state-‐‑
specific classes), whether the plaintiffs are adequate repre-‐‑
sentatives of a national class, and whether the settlement
ought to be approved. Our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§1292(a) is limited to the injunction, however. Whatever
scope remains for pendent appellate jurisdiction after Swint
v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 43–51 (1995), and
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 707 n.41 (1997), this is not an
appropriate occasion for its exercise. Disputes about class
certification and the terms of the settlement are independent
of the injunction against state litigation. Anyone dissatisfied
with the district court’s final disposition is free to seek appel-‐‑
late review; we will not try to resolve issues still under con-‐‑
sideration in the district court.
Effective immediately, the district court’s injunction is
stayed. Curts and the Missouri court are free to proceed. But
our mandate will issue in the ordinary course, to preserve
the parties’ entitlement to seek rehearing.
REVERSED
