File this under “be careful what you ask for.”
A group of class-action plaintiffs has filed a federal lawsuit demanding that the Texas Supreme Court issue a more prompt ruling on the pending state court appeal challenging their class certification.
The plaintiffs’ contention is that their federal constitutional rights are being violated by not being able to pursue their state class-action during the pendency of the appeal. (( Paragraph 10 of the complaint claims that “[f]or nearly a year, Case No. 05-0748 has been the oldest appeal awaiting a decision at the Texas Supreme Court….” That’s not how I would describe my own docket data; I do not draw a distinction between appeals and original proceedings set for oral argument. Although my docket-tracking website is referenced in paragraph 38, I was not consulted about this complaint and cannot speak to any of its other factual allegations. )) The appeal is Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Marketing on Hold, No. 05-0748 (docket and briefs). A PDF of the federal complaint is here [2.3MB]. It names each of the nine (current) Justices in their official capacities.
If this unusual lawsuit can have a most unusual feature, it might be this: among the plaintiffs is Harris County, Texas (Texas’s most populous county) — so a local arm of Texas government is attempting to assert §1983 civil-rights case against Texas state officials. (I’ll leave that problem set for your next Fed Courts exam.)
The 45-page lawsuit just asks for unspecified “declaratory relief,” but I’m not sure what that would accomplish. On reflection, I’m not sure whether this complaint is a political stunt or an extraordinary form of appellate seppuku. It’s rarely effectively advocacy to spit at the Court that is deciding your case.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Kendall Gray // Feb 16, 2010 at 9:57 am
This sounds like one of those research projects I get every once in a while when a trial lawyer comes in my office and asks, “I need you research whether I can [fill in the blank with very bad idea]”
Sometimes the only good response to such a request is, “Why in the world would ever do that?”
2 Four opinions, with the first dissents and concurrence of the Term [Feb. 19, 2010] // Feb 19, 2010 at 9:50 am
[…] No. 05-0748 (docket and briefs). This is the very same case in which the class representative filed suit against the Justices of the Texas Supreme Court last week. Today, the Court decided, by a 5-3 vote, that the class representative did not […]
3 New grant about calculating child support in divorce (Orders of May 7, 2010) // May 7, 2010 at 11:39 am
[…] Marketing on Hold sounds familiar, it’s the case that was at the center of the lawsuit filed against the Court for not deciding a case more quickly. The Court soon ruled, and the losing party sought […]
4 Federal lawsuit against the Texas Supreme Court goes out with a whimper // Jul 20, 2010 at 2:11 pm
[…] case (DocketDB) got some unusual attention when the Respondent (a putative class representative) filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the time the Texas Supreme Court was taking to issue its decision violated […]