Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Premier Nutrition Corporation, fka Joint Juice, Inc. v. Mary Beth Montera, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 22-16375, 22-16622 · judgment August 6, 2024
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel with five or more prior petitions here, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a business petitioner.
Questions presented
In Lehman Brothers v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (1974), this Court encouraged federal courts to certify uncertain questions of state law to state high courts. Certification, the Court advised, “save[s] time, energy, and resources and helps build a cooperative judicial federalism.” Id. at 391. Fifty years have now passed since Lehman without further guidance on when to use certification. In that time, lower courts have developed widely divergent approaches; several circuits have lost sight of Lehman’s goal of cooperative federalism, even as the need for cooperative federalism has increased. An increasing number of important state-law claims, particularly in the classaction context, are being litigated in foreign federal courts because of Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 582 U.S. 255 (2017). Yet many lower courts, especially the Ninth Circuit, have summarily refused to certify those questions to state high courts. States have thus been left to watch as far-away federal courts control their laws. The questions presented are:
-
Whether a federal court must consider federalism interests when asked to certify important and unresolved questions of state law?
-
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in summarily denying Petitioner’s request for certification in an unreasoned footnote?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Aaron D. Van Oort
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
For respondent
Adam Ross Pulver
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Proceedings
- Aug 24 2026Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
- Jul 30 2026Agreement of the parties to dismiss the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 filed by petitioner Premier Nutrition Corporation.
- Oct 14 2025Joint motion to hold petition in abeyance GRANTED.
- Sep 24 2025Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
- Sep 19 2025Letter dated September 19, 2025 from counsel for petitioner filed.
- Jun 25 2025Rescheduled.
- Jun 25 2025Joint motion to hold petition in abeyance filed.
- Jun 10 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/26/2025.
- Jun 06 2025Reply of petitioner Premier Nutrition Corporation filed. (Distributed)
- May 22 2025Brief of respondent Mary Beth Montera in opposition filed.
- May 09 2025Brief amici curiae of Idaho, et al. filed.
- Apr 14 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 23, 2025.
- Apr 11 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 9, 2025 to May 23, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Apr 09 2025Response Requested. (Due May 9, 2025)
- Apr 01 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2025.
- Mar 27 2025Waiver of right of respondent Mary Beth Montera to respond filed.
- Mar 17 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 21, 2025)
- Jan 14 2025Application (24A671) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 17, 2025.
- Jan 03 2025Application (24A671) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 16, 2025 to March 17, 2025, submitted to Justice Kagan.