The first decisions of the Supreme Court's new term put Justice Brett Kavanaugh on opposite sides of his fellow conservatives in a case involving Sunoco, a major gasoline and oil company in the United States. Sunoco was ordered to pay over $100 million in a class action lawsuit resulting from alleged late payments for oil production without interest, as is required by Oklahoma law. Sunoco asked the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that the group may include people who didn't actually suffer and that courts have to determine who is entitled to damages before awarding them.
The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, meaning they wouldn't hear the case. But, Kavanaugh said in the order that he would grant the petition. One justice, Justice Samuel Alito, sat out the decision.
While Alito provided no reason for why he didn't hear the case, it's possible it's because of a financial interest he has in Sunoco's competitors. Alito doesn't have a financial interest in Sunoco, but his financial disclosures from the past few years show that he has stock in Phillips 66, a company that operates refineries, fuel terminals, pipelines and is also active in the transportation and distribution of refined petroleum products, like Sunoco is. He has also a stake in ConocoPhillips, which is also involved in the oil and gas industry, although not considered a direct competitor of Sunoco's in terms of the fuel-distribution business.
Alito's investment in oil and gas companies also possibly caused his recusal in the first oral arguments of the new term. On Monday, justices heard arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v County Commissioners of Boulder County, a climate change case. Following months of pressure and complaints, Alito decided to recuse himself from the case, although he declined to give a reason.
Perry Cline case, Cline represented a class of royalty owners who alleged that Sunoco violated Oklahoma law by not paying interest on late royalty payments. They argued that the payments were only made once the owners specifically demanded it and courts upheld a ruling that required Sunoco to pay them $103 million. In the company's petition to the Supreme Court, Sunoco didn't argue over the settlement amount, but instead asked the Court to weigh in on how the class of recipients was decided.
The company argued that courts shouldn't be able to certify a class or award damages if they haven't determined the actual members of the class. They said the class included people who had funds sitting in unclaimed-property funds because Sunoco couldn't identify or locate the owners. Cline, in response, argued the case is a poor vehicle for deciding the broader issues of class action lawsuits that Sunoco asked the Court to decide.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
