The latest Supreme Court term has seen Justice Brett Kavanaugh diverge from his conservative colleagues concerning a case with Sunoco, a significant player in the gasoline and oil sector in the U.S. Sunoco faces a directive to pay over $100 million due to a class action lawsuit about late oil payment penalties in accordance with Oklahoma laws.
Sunoco sought Supreme Court intervention, questioning the inclusion of individuals in the claim who may not have suffered damages. They insisted courts should clarify who merits damages before any award. Nonetheless, the Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, indicating it will not hear the case. Justice Kavanaugh wanted to grant the petition; however, Justice Samuel Alito did not partake in the decision.
Alito offered no explanation for his absence, but it may link to financial interests in competing firms. While Alito owns no Sunoco stocks, his financial reports disclose holdings in Phillips 66, which, like Sunoco, manages refineries, fuel terminals, and pipelines, and ConocoPhillips, also in oil and gas but not a direct Sunoco competitor.
Alito’s investments potentially influenced him to step away from earlier oral arguments this term. During the sessions, justices discussed Suncor Energy Inc. versus Boulder County, a climate change lawsuit. Amidst rising demands and criticism, Alito withdrew from involvement without stating any reason.
“Cline represented a class of royalty owners who alleged that Sunoco violated Oklahoma law by not paying interest on late royalty payments.”
In the Sunoco v. Perry Cline case, Cline, representing a group of royalty owners, argued Sunoco violated Oklahoma mandates by missing interest payments on late royalties, only acting upon specific demands. Subsequently, courts instructed Sunoco to compensate $103 million. Sunoco petitioned the Supreme Court, not disputing the amount but questioning the class member selection criteria. They argued courts should not certify a class or assign damages without confirming actual class members.
Sunoco contended class members remained unidentified, partly due to unclaimed-property accounts sunken by unknown or unlocated owners. Cline countered, saying Sunoco’s business archives, utilized to disburse payments, could identify these members, thus confirming the financial damage suffered by each participant.
Sunoco warned that barring the Supreme Court’s intervention, the standing ruling could set a precedent where courts certify damages sans identifying lawful recipients. They voiced concerns over the added pressure on defendants to resolve lawsuits and significant economic strain on businesses, even without evidence of real individuals affected.