Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., Matter of

Decision Date27 April 1995
Docket NumberRHONE-POULENC,No. 94-3912,94-3912
Citation51 F.3d 1293
PartiesIn the Matter ofRORER INCORPORATED, et al., Petitioners.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Douglas F. Fuson(argued), Susan Weber, Sara J. Gourley, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, IL, for Rhone-Poulenc Inc., Armour Pharmaceutical Corp.

Duncan Barr, O'Connor, Cohn, Dillon & Barr, San Francisco, CA, Geoffrey R.W. Smith, Piper & Marbury, Washington, DC, for Miles Inc.

Richard L. Berkman, Robert A. Limbacher, Fred T. Magaziner, Richard C. Rizzo, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, for Baxter Healthcare Corp.

David I. Bell, Daphne B. Subar, Knapp, Peterson & Clarke, Glendale, CA, for Alpha Therapeutic Corp.

Debra A. Thomas, Chicago, IL, Dianne M. Nast(argued), Kohn, Savett, Klein & Graf, Philadelphia, PA, Timothy E. Eble, Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Charleston, SC, Jan Adams, St. Louis, MO, Jere M. Fishback, St. Petersburg, FL, James A. Green, Martin Levin, Levin, Middlebrooks, Mable, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, Pensacola, FL, Robert Huntley, Givens, Pursley & Huntley, Boise, ID, Judith S. Kavanaugh, Earl, Blank, Kavanaugh & Stotts, Sarasota, FL, Charles Kozak, Kaneohe, HI, Alan K. Laufman, Dallas, TX, Thomas W. Mull, Mull & Mull, Covington, LA, Robert L. Parks, John M. Cooney, Anderson, Moss, Parks & Sherouse, Miami, FL, David S. Shrager, Shrager, McDaid, Loftus, Flum & Spivey, Philadelphia, PA, Robert E. Turffs, Kanetsky, Moore & Deboer, Venice, FL, Timothy Davis, Heninger, Burge & Vargo, Birmingham, AL, Eric H. Weinberg, New Brunswick, NJ, Ronald B. Grayzel, Levinson, Axelrod, Wheaton & Grayzel, Edison, NJ, for John F. Grady.

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and BAUER and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Chief Judge.

Drug companies that manufacture blood solids are the defendants in a nationwide class action brought on behalf of hemophiliacs infected by the AIDS virus as a consequence of using the defendants' products.The defendants have filed with us a petition for mandamus, asking us to direct the district judge to rescind his order certifying the case as a class action.We have no appellate jurisdiction over that order.An order certifying a class is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291; it does not wind up the litigation in the district court.And, in part because it is reviewable (at least in principle--the importance of this qualification will appear shortly) on appeal from the final decision in the case, it has been held not to fit any of the exceptions to the rule that confines federal appellate jurisdiction to final decisions.In short, as the Supreme Court made clear in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351(1978), andGardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 437 U.S. 478, 480-82, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 2453-54, 57 L.Ed.2d 364(1978), it is not an appealable order.Those decisions involved the denial rather than the grant of motions for class certification, but the grant is no more final than the denial and no more within any of the exceptions to the final-decision rule.Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., 903 F.2d 186, 208(3d Cir.1990); 7B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and ProcedureSec. 1802, pp. 484-86 (2d ed. 1986).Still, even nonappealable orders can be challenged by asking the court of appeals to mandamus the district court.Indeed, as a practical matter only such orders can be challenged by filing a petition for mandamus; an appealable order can be challenged only by appealing from it; the possibility of appealing would be a compelling reason for denying mandamus.For obvious reasons, however, mandamus is issued only in extraordinary cases.Otherwise, interlocutory orders would be appealable routinely, but with "appeal" renamed "mandamus."Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 2124, 48 L.Ed.2d 725(1976);Eisenberg v. United States District Court, 910 F.2d 374, 375(7th Cir.1990).

How to cabin this too-powerful writ which if uncabined threatens to unravel the final-decision rule?By taking seriously the two conditions for the grant of a writ of mandamus.The first is that the challenged order not be effectively reviewable at the end of the case--in other words, that it inflict irreparable harm.Kerr v. United States, supra, 426 U.S. at 403, 96 S.Ct. at 2124;In re Sandahl, 980 F.2d 1118, 1119(7th Cir.1992);Eisenberg v. United States District Court, supra, 910 F.2d at 375.The petitioner"must ordinarily demonstrate that something about the order, or its circumstances, would make an end-of-case appeal ineffectual or leave legitimate interests unduly at risk."In re Recticel Foam Corp., 859 F.2d 1000, 1005-06(1st Cir.1988).Second, the order must so far exceed the proper bounds of judicial discretion as to be legitimately considered usurpative in character, or in violation of a clear and indisputable legal right, or, at the very least, patently erroneous.Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 1143-44, 99 L.Ed.2d 296(1988);Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 190, 66 L.Ed.2d 193(1980)(per curiam);United States v. Spilotro, 884 F.2d 1003, 1006-07(7th Cir.1989);In re Sandahl, supra, 980 F.2d at 1121;Maloney v. Plunkett, 854 F.2d 152(7th Cir.1988).We shall not have to explore these gradations; it will be enough to consider whether the district judge's order can fairly be characterized as usurpative.

The set of orders in which both conditions are satisfied is small.It certainly is not coterminous with the set of orders certifying suits as class actions.For even though such orders often, perhaps typically, inflict irreparable injury on the defendants(just as orders denying class certification often, perhaps typically, inflict irreparable injury on the members of the class), irreparable injury is not sufficient for mandamus; there must also be an abuse of discretion that can fairly be characterized as gross, very clear, or unusually serious.But it is not an empty set.The point of cases like Coopers & Lybrand is that irreparable harm is not enough to make class certification orders automatically appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, not that mandamus is never appropriate in a class certification setting.There is a big difference between saying that all class certification rulings are appealable as of right because they are final within the meaning of section 1291(the position rejected in Coopers & Lybrand ) and saying that a handful are--the handful in which the district judge committed a clear abuse of discretion.Mandamus has occasionally been granted to undo class certifications, see, e.g., In re Fibreboard Corp., 893 F.2d 706(5th Cir.1990), and we are not aware that any case has held that mandamus will never be granted in such cases.SeeIn re Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1137(4th Cir.1992);DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 117-19 and n. 6(3d Cir.1982).The present case, as we shall see, is quite extraordinary when all its dimensions are apprehended.We shall also see that when mandamus is sought to protect the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial in federal civil cases, as in this case, the requirement of proving irreparable harm is relaxed.

The suit to which the petition for mandamus relates, Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 157 F.R.D. 410 arises out of the infection of a substantial fraction of the hemophiliac population of this country by the AIDS virus because the blood supply was contaminated by the virus before the nature of the disease was well understood or adequate methods of screening the blood supply existed.The AIDS virus (HIV--human immunodeficiency virus) is transmitted by the exchange of bodily fluids, primarily semen and blood.Hemophiliacs depend on blood solids that contain the clotting factors whose absence defines their disease.These blood solids are concentrated from blood obtained from many donors.If just one of the donors is infected with the AIDS virus the probability that the blood solids manufactured in part from his blood will be infected is very high unless the blood is treated with heat to kill the virus.For general background, see Margaret W. Hilgartner, "AIDS and Hemophilia," 317 New England Journal of Medicine 1153 (1987); Leon W. Hoyer, "Hemophilia A," 330 New England Journal of Medicine 38 (1994); "U.S. CDC: HIV Cutting Lives Short in Hemophilia, Study Says," AIDS Weekly, Feb. 14, 1994.

First identified in 1981, AIDS was diagnosed in hemophiliacs beginning in 1982, and by 1984 the medical community agreed that the virus was transmitted by blood as well as by semen.That year it was demonstrated that treatment with heat could kill the virus in the blood supply and in the following year a reliable test for the presence of the virus in blood was developed.By this time, however, a large number of hemophiliacs had become infected.Since 1984 physicians have been advised to place hemophiliacs on heat-treated blood solids, and since 1985 all blood donated for the manufacture of blood solids has been screened and supplies discovered to be HIV-positive have been discarded.Supplies that test negative still are heat-treated, because the test is not infallible and in particular may fail to detect the virus in persons who became infected within six months before taking the test.

The plaintiffs have presented evidence that 2,000 hemophiliacs have died of AIDS and that half or more of the remaining U.S. hemophiliac population of 20,000 may be HIV-positive.Unless there are dramatic breakthroughs in the treatment of HIV or AIDS, all infected persons will die from the disease.The reason so many are infected even though the supply of blood for the manufacture of blood solids (as for transfusions) has...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
238 cases
  • Olden v. LaFarge Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • September 7, 2004
    ... ... R. Civ. P 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction); 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), and to deny class ... 737, 742, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-31, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 ... at 44. Indeed it might. See, e.g., In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1303 (7th Cir.1995) (noting that the Seventh ... ...
  • In re EpiPen Marketing, Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • February 27, 2020
    ... ... (composed of Mylan N.V., Mylan Specialty, L.P., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Mylan's CEO Heather Bresch) as distributors of the EpiPen, and the ... The court concludes that it need not decideas a matter of lawwhether the collateral source rule applies to plaintiffs' claims ... in state laws overwhelm common issues of fact"); In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer , Inc ., 51 F.3d 1293, 1300-02 (7th Cir. 1995) (decertifying class ... ...
  • Yu v. Brown
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • January 28, 1999
    ... ...          THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ... Penteco Corp. v. Union Gas System, Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir.1991) ...         Rule ... Martinez-Catala, 129 F.3d 213, 217 (1st Cir.1997); In re Rhone-Poulenc ... ...
  • Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 18, 1996
    ... ... Performance Unlimited v. Questar Publishers Inc., 52 F.3d 1373, 1381 (6th Cir.1995). Questions of contract interpretation ... E.g., In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1303 (7th Cir.) ("When the writ is used for ... an issue, such as breach of a contract, that is clearly legal as a matter of history and tradition; and either (a) can resolve the bulk of the ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
11 firm's commentaries
  • Finding the Earliest and Least Expensive Exit From Financial Services Class Actions
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • March 3, 2015
    ...effects that an adverse classwide verdict and its attendant publicity can have on publicly traded stock. See In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1298–1302 (7th Cir. 1995). Worse yet, after class certification has already been granted and interlocutory review has been denied, a com......
  • Update: Finding the Earliest and Least Expensive Exit from Financial Services Class Actions
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • February 26, 2015
    ...effects that an adverse classwide verdict and its attendant publicity can have on publicly traded stock. See In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1298–1302 (7th Cir. 1995). Worse yet, after class certification has already been granted and interlocutory review has been denied, a com......
  • Shifting Sands In Class Action Litigation
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 4, 2013
    ...111450_reversal_amcu_nam.authcheckdam.pdf (all web sites herein last visited January 23, 2013). 5 In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, 51 F.3d 1293, 1298 (7th Cir. 1995) (Posner, J.) ("Judge Friendly, who was not given to hyperbole, called settlements induced by a small probability of an immense judg......
  • Class Actions 101: Defeating Motions For Class Certification In Rule 23(b) Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 19, 2024
    ...186 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999)). 50. Castano v. Am. Tobacco Case, 84 F.3d 734, 750 (5th Cir. 1996); In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1300 (7th Cir. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought ab......
  • Get Started for Free
56 books & journal articles
  • Money matters: judicial market interventions creating subsidies and awarding fees and costs in individual and aggregate litigation.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 148 No. 6, June 2000
    • June 1, 2000
    ...without having to reinterpret the requirements of mandamus, as Judge Rovner argued had occurred in In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F. 3d 1293, 1304 (7th Cir. 1995) (Rovner, J., dissenting). Note that much of the interest in appellate review now comes from a claimed need to superintend d......
  • Arbitration and Unconscionability
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 19-3, March 2003
    • Invalid date
    ...(noting that "class certification places inordinate or hydraulic pressure on defendants to settle"); In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1299 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting that class certification may require defendants to "stake their companies on [the] outcome of a single jury trial"......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library Econometrics. Legal, Practical, and Technical Issues
    • June 23, 2005
    ...Cir. Conn. 2002), 186 Redmond v. Mo. W. State Coll., 1988-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 68,323 (W.D. Mo. 1988), 249 In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1995), 194 Rozema v. Marshfield Clinic, 174 F.R.D. 425 (W.D. Wis. 1997), 191-192 Ruiz v. Stewart Assocs., Inc., 171 F.R.D. 238 (N......
  • The Pesky Persistence of Class Action Tolling in Mass Tort Multidistrict Litigation
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 74-2, January 2014
    • January 1, 2014
    ...via a petition for a writ of mandamus—but, of course, “mandamus is issued only in extraordinary cases.” In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1294 (7th Cir. 1995) (“An order 438 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 74 possible that plaintiffs’ lawyers file putative personal injury class actio......
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT