Shady Grove Orthopedic Association v. Allstate Insurance Co.
United States Supreme Court
559 U.S. 393 (2010)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. (Shady Grove) (plaintiff) provided medical care to Sonia Galvez, who sustained injuries in a car accident. As partial payment for the medical care, Galvez assigned to Shady Grove her rights to insurance benefits under a policy by Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) (defendant). Although Allstate paid Shady Grove, it failed to do so within the statutorily required time and also refused to pay the statutory interest that had accrued on the late payment. Shady Grove filed a diversity class-action suit in the Eastern District of New York to recover the statutory interest owed to it and similarly situated parties. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. There, the court held that the statutory interest sought was a penalty and, consequently, that New York Civil Practice Law § 901(b) precluded a class-action suit in federal court to recover a “penalty” despite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which permits class actions. Shady Grove appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed and held that Rule 23 and § 901(b) addressed different issues and thus did not conflict. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
