Under New York CPLR 901(b), class actions to recover a penalty are prohibited unless such class actions are specifically authorized by statute. The Court of Appeals held that the treble damages provision of the Donnelly Act constituted a penalty and, therefore, that class actions seeking treble damages under the Donnelly Act are prohibited. The Court of Appeals reached this conclusion “[a]lthough one third of the award unquestionably compensates a plaintiff for actual damages,” because “the remainder necessarily punishes antitrust violations, deters such behavior (the traditional purpose of penalties) or encourages plaintiffs to commence litigation -- or some combination of the three.”
The Court of Appeals noted that the Legislature previously had and currently is considering amending the Donnelly Act to expressly authorize class actions for treble damages, and stated that “it lies with the Legislature to decide whether class action suits are an appropriate vehicle for the award of antitrust treble damages.” The Court left open the issue of whether a plaintiff “may maintain a class action under the Donnelly Act by foregoing treble damages in favor of actual damages.”
Finally, the Court of Appeals also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim because the “the connection between the purchaser of tires and the producers of chemicals used in the rubber-making process is simply too attenuated to support such a claim” and because “in this situation it is not appropriate to substitute unjust enrichment to avoid the statutory limitations on the cause of action created by the Legislature.”
This is a significant decision because, barring legislative action, it will bar antitrust plaintiffs from bringing class actions for treble damages under the Donnelly Act, and, may bar entirely class actions under the Donnelly Act. This is particularly significant in actions commenced by and on behalf of indirect purchasers, which are not cognizable under federal antitrust law.
Copyright ©2007 by Kaye Scholer LLP. All Rights Reserved. This publication is intended as a general guide only. It does not contain a general legal analysis or constitute an opinion of Kaye Scholer LLP or any member of the firm on the legal issues described. It is recommended that readers not rely on this general guide in structuring individual transactions but that professional advice be sought in connection with individual transactions. References herein to “Kaye Scholer LLP & Affiliates,” “Kaye Scholer,” “Kaye Scholer LLP,” “the firm” and terms of similar import refer to Kaye Scholer LLP and its affiliates operating in various jurisdictions.
Also of Interest
- US News–Best Lawyers Recognizes 32 Kaye Scholer Practices and 41 Lawyers November 1, 2016 • Recognitions
- Winning the War: Strategies for Prevailing in Consumer Fraud and False Advertising... October 17, 2016 • Articles
- And Now A Word From The Panel: 3 Alternatives To MDLs September 28, 2016 • Articles
- Kaye Scholer Represents Investors in Volkswagen Diesel Emissions Litigation September 28, 2016 • Client Successes
- Druckenbrodt Quoted in Bloomberg on Volkswagen Dieselgate September 14, 2016 • Media Mentions
- Arbisser Featured in The Recorder and Law360... September 7, 2016 • Media Mentions
- Three Partners Named to Benchmark Litigation’s Inaugural “Under 40 Hot List” August 11, 2016 • Recognitions
- Kaye Scholer Achieves Complete Victory for Spirit AeroSystems in Securities Class Action July 6, 2016 • Client Successes
- Three Kaye Scholer Partners Named Among Benchmark Litigation’s Top 250 Women... June 29, 2016 • Recognitions