Eduardo Pineiro Perez, et al. v. BP, P.L.C., et al.

Based on a case management and administrative order, PTO 60, which permitted only single plaintiff lawsuits, the district court dismissed with prejudice four (4) class action complaints filed by Petitioners stating that “these plaintiffs have not complied with PTO 60 because their complaints contain more than one plaintiff.” The Court of Appeals concluded that this Court’s opinion in Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398 – 399, 400, 401, 406 (2010), did not prohibit a district court’s limiting or restricting a federal court plaintiff’s “categorical” right “to pursue his claim as a class action.” The Court of Appeals concluded that Shady Grove does not prohibit “a district court’s ability to manage its docket by restricting the continued availability of a multi-plaintiff device, years into a complex MDL.” If a state legislature cannot pass a statute that limits the federal court plaintiff’s “categorical” right to pursue a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, it is incongruous for the Court of Appeals to authorize a district court to do so through a “one plaintiff per lawsuit” docket management order, the purpose of which was “to assist the Court in streamlining the remaining claims and to facilitate the administration of this MDL and the prosecution of the actions here …” Was the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of the class action complaints contrary to the holding of this Court in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398 – 399, 400, 401, 406 (2010), where this Court stated that the