In Lehman Brothers v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (1974), this Court encouraged federal courts to certify uncertain questions of state law to state high courts. Certification, the Court advised, "save[s] time, energy, and resources and helps build a cooperative judicial federalism." Id. at 391. Fifty years have now passed since Lehman without further guidance on when to use certification. In that time, lower courts have developed widely divergent approaches; several circuits have lost sight of Lehman's goal of cooperative federalism, even as the need for cooperative federalism has increased. An increasing number of important state-law claims, particularly in the class action context, are being litigated in foreign federal courts because of Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 582 U.S. 255 (2017). Yet many lower courts, especially the Ninth Circuit, have summarily refused to certify those questions to state high courts. States have thus been left to watch as far-away federal courts control their laws. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a federal court must consider federalism interests when asked to certify important and unresolved questions of state law?

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in summarily denying Petitioner's request for certification in an unreasoned footnote?

Whether a federal court must consider federalism interests when asked to certify important and unresolved questions of state law, and whether the Ninth Circuit erred in summarily denying Petitioner's request for certification in an unreasoned footnote