## Facts

- Manufacturers of blood-product concentrates used to treat hemophilia were sued by a proposed nationwide class of hemophiliacs (and representatives) who alleged HIV infection from defendants’ products.
- The concentrates were made from pooled blood donations, creating a high risk that contamination from a single infected donor could affect the finished product.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence of widespread HIV/AIDS among hemophiliacs and substantial mortality.
- Hundreds of related suits were pending nationwide in both state and federal courts.
- Plaintiffs asserted state-law negligence theories, including failure to implement earlier protective measures and inadequate donor screening and anti-contamination practices.

## Issues

1. Whether mandamus was available to review a class certification order that was not otherwise immediately appealable.
2. Whether certifying a nationwide Rule 23 class, premised on trying “common” negligence issues using a composite instruction blending many states’ laws, was an abuse of discretion causing irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit granted mandamus and directed the district court to rescind the class certification order.
- The court held that immediate intervention was warranted because the certification order imposed irreparable, non-remediable pressure on defendants to settle due to the aggregation of massive potential liability.
- The court concluded that the district court’s plan to try negligence on a nationwide “composite” basis exceeded permissible discretion under Rule 23 and diversity principles.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion that inflicts irreparable harm not adequately addressed by appeal after final judgment.
- In massive damages class actions, aggregation can create settlement pressure so extreme that it functions as irreparable harm for mandamus purposes.
- A federal court sitting in diversity must apply relevant state substantive law; it may not create an amalgamated, judicially invented national standard to replace materially varying state tort rules.
- Significant variation in governing state law can defeat Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and raise manageability concerns, especially where the proposed trial plan separates “common” liability issues from individualized causation and damages across many jurisdictions.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit vacated certification of a nationwide hemophiliac HIV-infection class because the proposed composite negligence trial improperly displaced differing state laws and, given the aggregation of potentially enormous liability, created coercive settlement pressure and manageability problems warranting mandamus relief.


In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., 51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1995)