Antisuit Injunctions and Preclusion Against Nonresident Class Members
In this article, Professor Monaghan addreses an issue of pressing concern in class action litigation today, namely, the extent to which a trial court's class judgement can bind -- either by preclusion or injunction -- unnamed nonresidnet class members, thus preventing them from raising due process challenges to the judgement in another court. After placing the antisuit injunction and preclusion issues in the context of recent class action and related developments, Professor Monaghan discusses the Supreme Court's 1985 decisions in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts and its applicability to these issues. In particular, Professor Monaghan criticizes reading Shutts' "implied consent" rationale as turning entirely on a class members' failure to opt out of the class action, and using that failure as a basis for an antisuit injunction against non-resident class members. Absent minimum contact, Shutts requires, inter alia, adequate representation at all times in order to establish in personam jurisdiction over nonresident class members. That issue can always be raised in another forum. In a class action universe that includes races to judgement and reverse auctions, this rule is desirable. In the absence of a legislative reform, Professor Monaghan concludes that non-party, non-resident class members must remain free to challenge, on due process grounds, otherwise preclusive judgments in a forum of their choosing.