Suppose that a class-action lawsuit is brought against a pharmceutical company and that a jury is convinced that, by the best evidence available at that time, the company is at fault and awards millions of dollars in damages. Suppose that two years later, science makes a discovery proving that the drug had nothing to do with the misfortunes of the plaintiffs. Can the company get its money back?
IANA lawyer, but just about any legal decision can be appealed and reversed within a certain time frame. I suggest it would be very improbable for such clear cut evidence new evidence to appeaar in a case of drug safety, but assuing it did and grounds could be found for appeal, it is possible.
What are sufficient grounds for an appeal? Someone who’s a real laywer will have to answer that one. I’m not sure if new scientific evidence in itself is grounds for an appeal.
Civil judgements are frequently reduced on appeal. The really big ones you hear about, as a front page shocker, are quietly whittled down in appeals. The famous coffee-in-the-lap lady’s huge award was eventually shrunk to less than a million.
Contrary to what the tort reform folks would like you to know, corporations file 3 times as many civil suits as individuals.
There is a doctrine in Anglo-American common law known as res judicata, meaning “the thing is decided.” Under res judicata, once a matter is fully litigated on its merits and all appeals are exhausted or the time to appeal has passed, the matter fully and completly decided for all time, and the judgment will not be modified.
The only way that a fully decided and appealed judgment might be reversed if the judgment was procured through a fraud upon the courts. A post-litigation scientific discovery would not be considered a fraud upon the courts, so the company would not be able to recover what it has paid.
I’m wondering if, in the case Lib proposes in the OP, an entirely new action might be entered, in which the pharmaceutical company sues the members of the class named in the original class action suit, conceding that the evidence at the time suggested strongly that they were at fault, and bringing forward the new evidence that suggests otherwise. The object of such suit, IMO, would be to clear their name and to terminate payments not already made – if they attempted to recover damages already paid, while they might be justified in doing so, they would look to be “the heartless corporation preying on innocent victims” all over again, and would lose more in goodwill and public perception than they gained from the recovery. (The last sentence is of course opinion, not a factual response, but it’s my assessment of what outcome they could reasonably seek restitution related to, given public perception and the climate of opinion.)
That was what I was wondering as well.
No. The suit you suggest would be barred by res judicata (a.k.a. claim preclusion), as Billdo’s excellent post explained.
In fact, even if the “new” evidence were discovered while the appeal was pending, it would be unlikely to help the company. The appeal would be based upon the factual record established at trial.
I don’t beleve this is possibles for at leasr two reasons. First, you can’t file a suit against a class of people. Second, to file suit you must prove damages by the other party, and a court-ordered jusdement would not count as damages inflicted by the winners of the previous suit.
New and material evidence which was unavailable previously is always admissible. If the time period for appeal had not expired, this would justify a reversal and remand.
Boyo Jim
Citations, please. I’m not a practicing attorney and I await posts by knowledgable attorneys here. However, IMHO, an action for unjust enrichment may lie. The prior claimants obtained an award at the expense of the prior defendant which was not justifiable, based on new knowledge. Therefore, the prior claimants were unjustly enriched at the expense of the prior defendant. As to not making a class of people defendants, I seriously question that premise. But I don’t know and would appreciate cites.
Sure you can:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) (emphasis added).
I suppose state codes of civil procedure could differ on these issues. But I think that you might be confusing civil practice with criminal procedural rules. I’ll defer to others on criminal procedure, but am generally aware of examples where a convicted person has re-opened his case based upon new evidence that was not available at the time of the conviction. I’m not sure of the precise procedural mechanism by which this happens.
Civil practice is different, at least in the jurisdictions that I am familiar with. A judgment is final once all appeal rights expire. Further, all issues not raised by the appellant at the trial court level are waived on appeal. In Illinois, there is a very, very limited exception to the finality of a judgment set forth in Section 2-1401 of our code of civil procedure, but there’s a two year limit, and the relief is virtually impossible to get in non-default settings except in cases of fraud on the court or similar extraordinary circumstances relating to the new evidence. I’ve never heard of a court reopening a civil judgment under circumstances similar to those outlined in the OP. A civil justice system which allowed the losing party to retry his case if he found new evidence would be completely unworkable. Cases would never end.
So I disagree with barbitu8’s first statement. New, material evidence does not “always” justify the reopening of a judgment. To the contrary, that remedy is only available in the rarest of circumstances. There are numerous hoops that a petitioner must jump though, and even then the remedy is avilable only in extenuating circumstances.
In response to his second comment, I refer him (as an example) to section 2-801 of the (Illinois) code of civil procedure, which appears to contemplate suits against a class of defendants, but (a) I’ve never heard of one; and (b) I believe the concept is inherently impossible for due process/personal jurisdiction reasons, at least for in personam actions. (In personam = suit against a person, as opposed to suits in rem, which deal with rights to property.) Although they’re not called class actions, in rem suits against defined classes of defendants are common. For example, in a foreclosure case, it’s standard to join “Unknown Owners” (of the property) as defendants and serve those defendants by publication. But this process can’t lead to a personal judgment against one of that class. The suit can only affect such person’s (non-record) claim against the property foreclosed. With that exception, I agree with Boyo Jim.
That leave’s barbitu8’s final comment. I disagree. Any unjust enrichment claim would (as has been said by me and others) be barred by res judicata, which inherently would prevent the judgment debtor from establishing the central element of the suggested unjust enrichment claim (that the benefit to the original plaintiff was unjust.) No cites, because I don’t know what you are requesting. Are you looking for a case that decscribes the doctrine of res judicata?
Hmm… I’ve done some more reading on actions against defendant classes. The wording of FRCP 23 is similar to the Illinois language I alluded to above. There are a few reported Federal cases where defendant classes were certified, but it’s infrequent in part for the reasons I mentioned, and not always available. See Henson v. East Lincoln Township, 814 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1987) for a discussion.
I said
I said nothing about reopening of a judgment. My first sentence did not limit this to appeals, but my second sentence did. I guess I did not state the first sentence correctly, but I intended to limit that to appeals only, and that was in response to a post that said this remedy was not available on appeal.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10
(a) Composition of the Record on Appeal. The following items constitute the record on appeal:
(1) the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court;
(2) the transcript of proceedings, if any; and
(3) a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the district clerk.
The rules are similar in every state that I have seen. Sometimes you can get a remand (especially in criminal cases) to establish a record of collateral/or procedural errors (like ineffective assistance of counsel), but you can’t submit new evidence on appeal.
Do you have any citations for this proposition?
Because Rules 59(a) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make clear that newly discovered evidence is not “always admissible,” but instead admissible under very limited circumstances and for a maximum of a year after the judgment was entered. A rule 60(b) motion is very difficult to win. What’s more, once the case is on appeal, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a Rule 59 and Rule 60 motions, and so once the appeal is started, no court will consider the new evidence because procedurally there is no way to get it in. And yes, the rules are a little different in criminal cases. But we weren’t talking about criminal cases.
That leaves the “independent action to relive a party from a judgment.” But courts have held that you can’t avoid the time limitations of Rule 60(b) by either trying to shoehorn your claim into 60(b)(6) or by filing an independent action. So you can’t file a motion or a new case attacking the judgment based on new evidence once the time limit on 60(b)(2) has expired.
Rule 59. New Trials; Amendment of Judgments
(a) Grounds.
A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues (1) in an action in which there has been a trial by jury, for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the United States; and (2) in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of the United States. On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment.
(**b) Time for Motion.
Any motion for a new trial shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.**
Rule 60(b)
b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc.
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., § 1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
Defendant classes
Yes. You can sue a class of defendants. This happens sometimes in antitrust cases. The problem is that you need a class representative. See Rule 23(a)(4). In trade cases, you can frequently make a trade association a class representative. But in a case against a group of individuals, this gets a little harder. In the hypothetical, the company could argue that the class representative in the original class action was found by the court to be adequate in the previous case. But this case would be different, so it is unclear how a court would rule.
I’m not saying that the “unjust enrichment” theory would work. It wouldn’t. But you can file a class action agains a defendant class. Moreover, you can simply sue multiple defendants. See Rule 20(a).
There are several possible avenues in the criminal process.
If the new evidence surfaces subsequent to the entry of the verdict, but prior to the direct appeal, it’s a simple matter of a motion to the trial court for a new trial.
If the new evidence is discovered during the pendency of the appeal, it’s a bit more difficult. The appellate court cannot, obviously, hear new evidence, but the appeal has divested the trial court of jurisdiction. Typically, the new evidence would be introduced via a collateral attack on the conviction, following the jurisdiction’s specific procedure for post-conviction relief. At common law, the writ of coram nobis was the vehicle, but most states have replaced the writ with a specific statutory process.
If the time limit for post-conviction relief has passed, then the method of last resort, which is generally always available, is a writ of habeas corpus. This is an extraordinary writ that basically challenges the lawfulness of the custody of the prisoner. If the new evidence of innocence is overwhelming, the custody is obviously unlawful.
I take your point, but introducing new evidence at the appellate level is even more difficult (impossible) than re-opening a civil trial court judgment. Gfactor has explained this with respect to Federal proceedings. The only point I’ll add is that it is the same in Illinois state practice, and I would be surprised even any state allowed the free introduction of new evidence on appeal.
Can they take some other approach? Say, rather than attempting to reverse a finding (back to civil here), can they open a new lawsuit? Something along the lines of, “Hey! We got royally screwed for something that we can prove was not our fault.” (Due to the new scientific findings.) “Therefore, we want our money and our reputation back.”
I noticed someone has said that they try to discourage heavy court loads, but I’m weighing the thing in my head, and I’m thinking: okay, innocent people get royally screwed versus judges and clerks do a lot of work. For me, the scale by any classical ethic tilts in favor of a justice system that dispenses… well… justice. If they have to work hard, they just have to work hard. And if they don’t like hard work, they should go into some other, more leisurely, business. That’s how it seems to me from my lay view.
I hear what you are saying, but the issue is really not reducing heavy courtloads, the issue is that the parties to the suit want to get it resolved. One of the main benefits of a judgment is finality.
The purpose of our civil system is to get disputes RESOLVED. What the jury (or the judge if it is a bench trial) does is look at the preponderance of the evidence to decide who wins. No one thinks this is infallible. Let’s say as a jury you all agree that the evidence is 55% for one side and 45% for the other. In that case, you are supposed to go with the 55% side. (Remember that this is a civil matter, and the standard is not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in a criminal case.) Well, built into this is the idea that there is a strong possibility that you as the jury may be wrong. But we have to get the dispute resolved somehow.
Now, if all the losing side has to do is point to some evidence that–they claim–shows that they should have one, well, then you can see that no lawsuit would ever end. Whoever lost would just keep coming back with one more piece of evidence–and the winning side would then have to, probably at significant cost, disprove that evidence.
I have seen cases where deluded, combative, irrational or gameplaying parties try to do exactly this. They just keep coming back with one more piece of evidence proving that they should have won. If the courts did not take a firm hand with this, then, as I said, no lawsuit would ever end.
From another perspective, we can dream up hypotheticals where a huge injustice results from closing the book on a case. But, in the vast run of cases, there is no reason to think that this newly discovered evidence will contribute to a better decision. After the case is over, the winning party stops litigating the case. Those couple of witnesses who might have helped out? The winning party doesn’t interview them, because, well, the case is over and we won. The losing party meanwhile, decides to keep looking for witnesses, looking for records, etc. Then the losing party comes back with this lone witness who, supposedly, changes the whole case. Well, if the winning party had kept investigating, maybe the winning party would find even more witnesses that would make their case even more airtight. But they don’t, again because the case is over.
Now, the law recognizes at least one exception to this: fraud on the court. If you can show that (a) the judge was bribed, or (b) somebody forged a document or something, that is a different story. Then a judgment can be reopened. But those are narrow circumstances where we are confident that new evidence will result in a more accurate decision.