On January 20, 2011, Wal-Mart filed its opening merits brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case mentioned several times earlier in this blog. Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart asserts that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is not consistent with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a), because the “Class members – potentially millions of women supervised by tens of thousands of different managers and employed in thousands of different stores throughout the country – assert highly individualized fact-intensive claims for monetary relief that are subject to individualized statutory defenses.”
Wal-Mart also asserts that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is not consistent with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(b)(2), because that rule relates to injunctive relief, yet plaintiffs seek billions of dollars in individual monetary relief. Wal-Mart acknowledged however, that many circuits allow monetary relief under this procedural rule if the monetary relief does not predominate over the injunctive relief.
You can see the brief at this link.
