Cheri Poe v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company

Last Term, until a settlement on the eve of conference, this Court appeared poised to grant certiorari in Premium Nutrition v. Montera, No. 24-999. The petition there asked the Court to clarify, for the first time since Lehman Brothers v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (1974), the standards for certifying issues of state law to state high courts. This petition presents another opportunity and a sound vehicle to address this vexing problem, framed as two questions for review:

1. When a federal court considers whether to certify a state law issue to a state high court, what factors, including federalism interests, bear on the certification decision?1

2. When a party seeks certification, should federal courts explain their rulings? 1 A “state law issue” refers, without need for repetition, to substantive state law binding in diversity actions under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), and substantive state law implicated under supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).