We write immediately with an replace on a case making use of the protection of illegality (or “in pari delicto”) to chop off product legal responsibility claims below Kansas legislation. Messerli v. AW Distributing, Inc. is the unhappy case of somebody who handed away, allegedly because of inhaling intoxicating fumes (or “huffing”) from pc dusters, these cans of compressed air you utilize to blow away mud. As we wrote right here, a federal district court docket in Kansas granted one defendant’s movement to dismiss on the idea that the decedent had engaged in unlawful conduct, which supported a whole protection. To summarize, Kansas’s illegality protection bars claims arising from a plaintiff’s unlawful conduct, and huffing is against the law in Kansas below legal guidelines towards “the illegal abuse of poisonous vapors.”
This was the primary court docket to rule that Kansas’s illegality protection applies in a product legal responsibility case, so the plaintiff requested the federal court docket to certify inquiries to the Kansas Supreme Court docket. The opposite defendants predictably filed “me too” motions in search of the identical end result for themselves.
The court docket’s order on these motions is Messerli v. AW Distributing, Inc., No. 22-2305, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188974 (D. Kan. Oct. 20, 2023), and the protection once more got here out on high. First, the district court docket denied the plaintiff’s request to certify questions. That is essentially the most attention-grabbing a part of the order as a result of, in spite of everything, this was a federal court docket, and it was the primary to use Kansas legislation on this method. Heck, that was one of many main factors of our final publish and partly what made the case blogworthy within the first place. Common readers additionally know that we frequently bemoan federal courts who make unfounded Erie predictions of state legislation.
This Erie prediction, nevertheless, was exceptionally properly supported, and an authorized query requires way more than what the plaintiff needed to supply. The problem of whether or not illegality bars product legal responsibility claims met the naked standards for certification: It was each (1) consequence determinative and (2) unprecedented within the Kansas appellate courts. Even so, “[a] federal court docket needn’t certify ‘each time an arguably unsettled query of state legislation comes throughout [its] desk.’” Id. at *10. It’s inside a federal court docket’s discretion to make an Erie prediction, reasonably than certify, and that’s what this court docket did. It thought of, for instance, selections from a number of different jurisdictions, in addition to Kansas selections recognizing the illegality protection typically. The “weight and development” of the authorities supported the court docket’s prediction, which the plaintiff solely strengthened by citing dissenting opinions urging a special end result. Id. at *11-*13. Plaintiffs had been additionally unable to supply any sign that the Kansas courts thought of the query in any respect unsettled. Id. at *16.
In the long run, “[t]he questions at play right here aren’t as novel and necessary as plaintiff would have the court docket imagine.” Id. at *17. The district court docket additionally famous that requests to certify are significantly disfavored after the requesting celebration has obtained an hostile ruling. Certainly, the plaintiff right here was mainly asking the federal court docket to submit its order to a state court docket for overview. That pathway usually runs by way of the USA Court docket of Appeals, not a state court docket. And if the plaintiff actually thinks the Kansas Supreme Court docket must weigh in right here, it will possibly renew its certification request on attraction. Id. at *17-*20. The plaintiff’s request for certification was too little, too late.
Second, the district court docket dismissed the claims towards the opposite defendants. The criticism didn’t distinguish between the varied defendants. On the contrary, the plaintiff alleged that each one the defendants’ merchandise had been “an identical in composition,” and it introduced claims towards the defendants indiscriminately. The illegality protection subsequently barred the claims towards the opposite defendants, too.
This order terminated all claims within the case, so we the suppose the subsequent cease often is the Tenth Circuit, and possibly even one other movement to certify questions. We are going to hold you posted.
