Document: 521 U.S. 591117 S.Ct. 2231138 L.Ed.2d 689 AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Petitioners,v.George WINDSOR al. No. 96-270. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 18, 1997. Decided June 25, Syllabus * This case concerns legitimacy under Rule 23 Federal Rules Civil Procedure a class-action certification sought to achieve global settlement current and future asbestos-related claims. Never intending litigate, settling parties-petitioners representatives plaintiff class described below-presented District action complaint, an answer, proposed agreement, joint motion for conditional certification. The complaint identifies nine lead plaintiffs, designating them members their families as comprised all persons who had not previously sued any asbestos-manufacturing companies that are petitioners in this suit, but (1) been exposed-occupationally or through occupational exposure spouse household member-to asbestos attributable petitioner, (2) whose family member so exposed. Potentially hundreds thousands, perhaps millions, individuals may fit description. All named plaintiffs alleged exposure; more than half already manifested physical injuries; others, so-called "exposure-only'' claimants, they yet condition. delineated no subclasses; were designated entire class. exhaustive inter alia, settle, preclude nearly from litigating, claims filed against petitioners; detailed administrative mechanism schedule payments compensate meet defined medical criteria; (3) four categories compensable cancers nonmalignant conditions, specified range damages be paid qualifying claimants each; (4) did adjust inflation; (5) capped number payable annually each disease; (6) denied compensation members' loss-of-consortium claims, exposure-only plaintiffs' emotional distress, enhanced risk disease, monitoring, "pleural'' involving lung plaques impairment, even if otherwise applicable state law recognized such approved parties' plan giving notice certified only. court found, over numerous challenges raised by objectors, was fair, court's jurisdiction properly invoked, representation adequate. Pending issuance final order, enjoined separately pursuing suits federal court. Third Circuit ultimately vacated Court's orders. Although objectors maintained justiciable lacked standing sue, Appeals declined reach these issues, reasoning would exist acknowledged only, held requirements must met going litigated, without taking into account. nevertheless homed on settlement's terms examining aspects criteria. explained inappropriate because failed satisfy, among other provisions, 23(b)(3)'s requirement questions common "predominate over'' questions, 23(a)(4)'s adequacy requirement. therefore ordered decertified. Held: 1.The issues dispositive here resolution is logically antecedent existence Article III issues. declines resolve objectors' assertions controversy presented lack sue. Cf. Arizonans Official English v. Arizona, 520 ----, 117 1055, 1068, 137 170. follows path mindful 23's interpreted keeping with constraints, Enabling Act's instruction procedural rules abridge, enlarge, modify substantive right. Pp. ____-____. 2.The sprawling does satisfy requirements. (a) gained its shape 1966 revision. Its subdivisions (b) enumerate criteria certified. 23(b)(3) most adventuresome innovation Amendments, permitting judgments money bind save those opt out. To gain 23(b)(3), 23(a), them, will fairly adequately protect interests; also affecting only individual members'' "superior available methods fair efficient adjudication controversy.'' alert right "opt out,'' requires "the best practicable circumstances.'' 23(c)(2). Finally, 23(e) specifies cannot settled approval, compromise given manner directs. Because relevant propriety certification, Circuit's statement 23(a) (b)(3) "must satisfied account settlement'' bears modification. But not, fact, ignore settlement. explaining why it found absentees' interests inadequately represented. inspection agreement regard altogether proper. Whether trial present intractable management problems, see 23(b)(3)(D), consideration when settlement-only requested, proposal there trial. specifications rule designed absentee blocking unwarranted overbroad definitions vital importance context, opportunity litigation unfolds. See 23(c) (d). And, overriding importance, courts bound enforce now composed, amended extensive deliberative process Congress prescribed. 23(e)'s prescription function additional requirement, superseding direction, class-qualifying (b). Eisen Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 156, 176-177, 94 2140, 2151-2152, 40 732. dominant concern (b)-that have sufficient unity absentees can representatives' decisions-persists settlement, rather trial, proposed. Those subdivisions' safeguards provide practical checks context. First, standards serve inhibit certifications dependent upon gestalt judgment overarching impression fairness. Second, fairness inquiry controlled eclipsing (b), despite impossibility litigation, both counsel disarmed. Class confined negotiations could use threat press better offer, face bargain proffered approval benefit adversarial investigation. courts, case, authority substitute standard never adopted rulemakers-that "fair,'' then (c) predominance factors relied parties: shared experience interest receiving prompt compensation, while minimizing risks transaction costs inherent tort system's process; benefits asbestos-exposed might grand-scale scheme matter legislative consideration, pertinent inquiry. That trains legal factual qualify member's genuine controversy, preexist tests whether classes sufficiently cohesive warrant representation. In contrast, protects unnamed unjust unfair settlements agreed fainthearted self-interested representatives; assure cohesion legitimizes representative first place. If stripped meaning criterion exposure, greater peculiar several members, within category, significance uncommon questions. No called attention one here. mass cases arising cause disaster may, depending circumstances, Advisory Committee revision advised ordinarily appropriate treatment, warned district exercise caution stakes high disparities great. follow caution. upheld, rests conception irreconcilable rule's design. (d) Nor adequate serves uncover conflicts between parties seek represent. General Telephone Co. Southwest Falcon, 457 147, 157-158, n. 13, 102 2364, 2370-2371, 72 740. Representatives part possess same suffer injury members. E.g., East Tex. Motor Freight System, Inc. Rodriguez, 431 395, 403, 97 1891, 1896-1897, 52 453. diverse conditions act behalf single giant discrete subclasses. significant respects, aligned. Most saliently, currently injured, critical goal generous immediate payments. tugs ensuring ample, inflation-protected fund future. Northwest EEOC, 446 318, 331, 100 1698, 1706-1707, 64 319. disparity injured diversity made insignificant finding petitioners' assets suffice pay 23(b)(1)(B) "limited fund'' terms-e.g., inflation adjustments, few per year permitted out at back end, extinguished-reflect essential allocation decisions confine limit defendants' liability. Thus, achieved structural assurance groups affected. operated proper understanding representational responsibilities. assessment mark. (e) light conclusions issue representation, need rule, definitively, recognizes, however, gravity question Constitution ever legions unselfconscious amorphous Court. P. 2252. (f) argument sensibly nationwide processing regime secure, means compensating victims exposure. Congress, has solution. 23, which fidelity Act applied absent close view, carry large load heaped it. 83 F.3d 610, affirmed. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, concurring dissenting part, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, took decision case. Stephen M. Shapiro, petitioners. Laurence H. Tribe, Cambridge, MA, respondents. Justice GINSBURG 1 potentially encompasses tied together commonality: was, some day be, adversely affected past products manufactured 20 companies. companies, defendants lower 2 Eastern Pennsylvania personal-injury court, state, pending order. orders, holding respects. We affirm Appeals' judgment. 3 A 4 settlement-class we confront evolved response asbestos-litigation crisis. Georgine Amchem Products, Inc., 618, (C.A.3 1996) (citing commentary). Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Asbestos Litigation, appointed THE CHIEF JUSTICE September 1990, facets problem 1991 report: 5 " [This] tale danger known 1930s, inflicted millions Americans 1940s 1950s, injuries began take toll 1960s, flood lawsuits beginning 1970s. On basis filing data, latency period last long years related diseases, continuing stream expected. unknown. Predictions 200,000 disease deaths before 2000 many 265,000 2015. 6 "The objectionable briefly summarized: dockets continue grow; delays routine; trials too long; litigated over; exceed victims' recovery two one; exhaustion threatens distorts lose altogether.'' Report Litigation 2-3 (Mar.1991). 7 Real reform, report concluded, required legislation creating national dispute-resolution scheme. id., 3, 27-35; 42 (dissenting Hogan, J.) (agreeing "a solution answer'' suggesting "passage procedure similar Black Lung legislation''). As recommended Committee, urged act. Proceedings 33 (Mar. 12, 1991). date, congressional emerged. 8 inaction, courts-lacking replace systems toxic regime-endeavored work tools improve litigation. Eight judges, experienced superintendence cases, Panel Multidistrict (MDL Panel), consolidate complaints courts. Accepting recommendation, MDL transferred filed, district, Pennsylvania; pursuant transfer collected consolidated pretrial proceedings Judge Weiner. re Products Liability (No. VI), 771 F.Supp. 415, 422-424 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1991).1 order aggregated only; resides license filed. B 9 After consolidation, attorneys formed separate steering committees negotiations. Ronald L. Motley Gene Locks-later appointed, along Motley's partner Joseph F. Rice, represent action-co-chaired Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. Counsel Center Claims Resolution (CCR), consortium former manufacturers us petitioners, participated Defendants' Committee.2 collected, transferred, commenced included efforts find "means resolving . cases.'' Record, Doc. p. (Memorandum Support Joint Motion Conditional Certification); 157 F.R.D. 246, 266 (E.D.Pa.1994) ("primary purpose talks craft alternative claims,'' including future). 10 November 1991, offer settle providing distribution individuals. rejected fell apart. CCR, continued pursue workable system handling claims.'' Id., 270. 11 CCR approached lawyers headed unsuccessful negotiations, new round began; yielded controversy. At time, heads represented thousands then-pending claims-claimants suit call "inventory'' plaintiffs. indicated discussions resist inventory "some kind protection future.'' 294; 295 (CCR communicated once saw rational way deal expected future, prepared address cases). 12 Settlement thus concentrated devising disposition masses endeavored anticipated although attorney-client relationship claimants. 13 Once seemed likely produce purporting potential agreements, lawsuits. promised $200 million release approached, launched exclusively outside Panel's province-plaintiffs lawsuits.3 C 14 instituted intended litigated. Rather, space day, January 15, 1993, parties-CCR certification.4 15 identified comprising lawsuit defendant date commenced, containing defendant, exposed.5 Untold numbers fall exposed asbestos-containing defendants. More suffered various result others whole. 16 invoked asserted state-law relief, negligent failure warn, strict liability, breach express implied warranty, infliction (7) civil conspiracy. Each requested unspecified excess $100,000. answer principal allegations affirmative defenses. 17 stipulation accompanied pleadings; litigating personal death. An document exceeding pages, presents detail asbestos-exposure describes disease: mesothelioma; cancer; certain "other cancers'' (colon-rectal, laryngeal, esophageal, stomach cancer); "non-malignant conditions'' (asbestosis bilateral pleural thickening). Persons "exceptional'' claims-claims do diagnostic categories-may instances caps cover. 18 For Payments adjustable inflation. Mesothelioma claimants-the highly compensated category-are scheduled receive $20,000 $200,000. provides propose level prescribed ranges; establishes procedures disputes diagnoses levels compensation. 19 Compensation above fixed ranges obtained "extraordinary'' places numerical dollar limits claims.6 imposes "case flow maximums,'' cap year. kinds recognizes garner include loss consortium, increased cancer, fear injury, monitoring. "Pleural'' lungs accompanying excluded. entitled develop Defendants forgo defenses statute limitations pleas. 21 main, perpetuity, choose withdraw after ten years. small members-only year-may reject option, assert punitive claim cancer. Aspects administration monitored AFL-CIO counsel. attorneys' fees amount D 22 29, parties, conditionally certified, encompassing opt-out occupationally products, families, 15. Weiner Locks, Motley, Rice counsel, noting [t]he appoint deemed necessary advisable.'' 11, (Class Certification Order). stage proceedings, fact appointed. divided assigned Reed, Pennsylvania, task conducting determining class.'' F.R.D., 258. Various objections stipulation, granted full rights participate subsequent proceedings. Ibid.7 preliminary rulings, Reed subject-matter jurisdiction, Carlough 834 1437, 1467-1468 (E.D.Pa.1993), he elaborate class, 158 314, 336 (E.D.Pa.1993). court-approved informed recipients exclude themselves chose, three-month period. 24 Objectors They unfairly disadvantaged changes, understanding. intolerably low comparison awards received And objected absence example, States. Rejecting objections, concluded negotiated collusion. 325, 331-332. He 332-334, appropriate, 315. 25 specific prerequisites observed 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement,8 ibid., debates. 23(a)(2) commonality9 preponderance10 satisfied, held, 26 supplied share occurs presently system. satisfies reasonable predominant purposes 23(b)(3).'' 316. 27 next "typical'' whole, 23(a)(3),11 that, demands,12 "superior'' adjudication. ibid. 28 Strenuous regarding 23(a)(4) requirement.13 disqualifying interests. particular, urged, become manifest should Furthermore, argued, representing newly-formed 29 Satisfied ably concerned, served representatives, objections. 317-319, 326-332. Subclasses unnecessary, bearing mind added cost confusion entail ability during 318-319. Reasoning "have strong maximized any, categories,'' "no antagonism impairment.'' 318. Declaring preliminarily commencing 878 716, 726-727 (E.D.Pa.1994). 30 appealed. satisfied. 610 (1996). E 31 Appeals, long, heavily Becker, noted justiciability, notice. These challenges, said, "serious concerns.'' 623. However, observed, jurisdictional [class action] certification.'' Ibid. Turning class-certification dispositive, decide 32 prerequisites, referred earlier decision, Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank 55 768 (C.A.3), cert. denied, 516 116 88, 133 45 (1995) (hereinafter GM Trucks), 23(a)'s F.3d, 799-800. apply, 23(b)(3). 625. cf. 90 963, 975-976, (C.A.5 1996), pending, Nos. 96-1379, 96-1394. While stating "without settlement,'' 626, closely considered examined 630-634. 23(a)(2)'s "commonality'' subsumed under, superseded by, stringent trained "predominance'' 627. harmfulness indeed prime factor observed. 630. abounded. 34 contrast torts accident, different ways, periods, amounts time; disabling deadly diseases. 628. "These differences,'' explained, "translate[d] differences.'' State governed varied widely "viability [exposure-only] [and] availability causes injury.'' Ibid.14 [T]he humongous action,'' barred determination, existing law, predominated, 35 intra-class preclude[d] th[e] meeting requirement'' 23(a)(4). Adverting to, charges attorney conflict interests, addressed advance certainly correct extent: ""[T]he united seeking maximum possible claims.''' (quoting 317). "But simply general fund,'' immediately added; [r]ather, makes important how allocated necessarily favor others.'' 36 "most salient'' divergence separated afflicted (exposure-only plaintiffs). latter rationally want distant recoveries. sturdy back-end "causation provisions keep pace changing science medicine, freezing place 1993.'' 630-631. Already care little about trade higher payouts. 631. adverse carefully strongly suggested undivided set 37 determination 23(a)(3) overlaps question: "both look 632. Evident led hold "typical' 38 similarly superiority action. initially complex "could tried.'' elaborated particularly, unfairness binding unaware information make reasoned stay 633. "A series statewide narrowly adjudications, either consolidation 42(a) actions seem preferable,'' said. 634. 39 Circuit, intensive review, decertification vacation anti-suit injunction. 635. Wellford concurred, "fully subscrib[ing] Becker ha[d] 23.'' his depositions showed [t]hey claimed 638. certiorari, 519 379, 136 297 (1996), affirm. II 41 array barriers. fundamentally, maintain proceeding confines Constitution. say, nonadversarial endeavor impose countless ripe injuries. urge sue: Either sustained cognizable or, extent states demands relief redress. argue then-current amount-in-controversy (in $50,000) federal-court based citizenship. U.S.C. §1332(a). 43 recounted, supra, __, "would agree dispositive,'' ibid.; first, 170 (1997) (declining definitively mootness case). taken Act, instructs "shall enlarge right,'' §2072(b). Fed. Civ. Proc. 82 ("rules shall construed extend [subject matter] courts'').15 44 describe characteristics provide. governing actions, stems equity practice innovative generally Kaplan, Continuing Work Committee: Amendments (I), 81 Harv. L.Rev. 356, 375-400 (1967) Work). threshold actions: (a "class [so large] joinder impracticable''); commonality ("questions class''); typicality (named "are typical (representatives "will class''). addition satisfying show maintainable 23(b)(1), (2), (3). 23(b)(1) covers establishing "incompatible conduct party opposing class,'' 23(b)(1)(A), "as interests'' nonparty "or substantially impair impede interests,'' 23(b)(1)(B). 23(b)(1)(A) "takes where obliged treat alike utility acting toward customers; government imposing tax), necessity riparian owner using water downriver owners).'' 388 (footnotes omitted). includes, insufficient Committee's Notes U.S.C.App., pp. 696-697 Adv. Comm. Notes). 46 23(b)(2) permits declaratory injunctive acted refused grounds charged unlawful, class-based discrimination examples. Notes, 697; 389 (subdivision (b)(2) "build[s] mainly, exclusively, field''). 47 amendments, category here, adventuresome'' innovation. Prefatory Note, B.C. Ind. Com. 497, 497 (1969) Note). complex-litigation arsenal secure affirmatively elected 7A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Practice §1777, 517 (2d ed.1986) Kane); 379-400. out'' "spurious'' action, characterized functioned permissive ("opt in'') device. Kane §1753, 28-31, 42-44; 695. 48 Framed situations "class-action treatment clearly for'' situations, "may convenient desirable.'' 697. beyond prerequisites: Common members''; adding "superiority'' qualification-for-certification list, cover "in economies effort, expense, promote uniformity situated, sacrificing bringing undesirable results.'' Sensitive competing autonomy prefer go alone smaller unit, hand, systemic efficiency other, Reporter amendments cautioned: provision invites accepted '' 390. 49 includes nonexhaustive list "close look'' criteria: 50 (A) individually controlling prosecution defense actions; (B) nature concerning class; (C) desirability undesirability concentrating particular forum; (D) difficulties encountered action.'' 51 setting factors, reform "consider own litigations carrying fit.'' 698. elaborated: denial theoretic practical; degree quite unobjectionable, stake impracticable.'' 53 391 ("Th[e] [in control] bulks himself strong; impracticable.'') (footnote instant case: "Each death] [his case]''; "ha[s] substantial making settle.'' 54 text run high, dominantly vindication people effective strength bring opponents all.'' Note 497. concisely recalled recent Seventh opinion: policy very core overcome recoveries incentive solo prosecuting her rights. solves aggregating relatively paltry something worth someone's (usually attorney's) labor.'' Mace Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 338, 344 (1997). 56 "direct effort.'' 23(c)(2); 173-177, 2150-2152, 732 (1974) (individual identifiable effort mandatory relaxed cost). 57 "dismissed compromised [court] approval,'' preceded 23(e). sole comment terse restates elaboration: "Subdivision notice, dismissal 699. 58 decades since "adventuresome'' coping "just, speedy, inexpensive determination'' one. 1. development reflects resources conservation funds line up early queue. J. Weinstein, Individual Mass Tort Litigation: Effect Actions, Consolidations, Other Multiparty Devices (1995); Schwarzer, Actions: Order Chaos, 80 Cornell 837 (1995). 59 Among applications "settlement only'' stock See, e.g., T. Willging, Hooper, Niemic, Empirical Study Actions Four Courts: Final 61-62 (1996) (noting districts studied). Circuits recognize classes, affects surveillance 60 Trucks, 799-800, 624-626, unwarranted. obviates reduces measure enumerated 975(C.A.5) ("in arise itself'') Newberg A. Conte, §11.28, 11-58 (3d ed.1992)); White National Football League, 402, 408 (C.A.8 1994) ("adequacy determined itself''), 515 1137, 115 2569, 132 821 A.H. Robins Co., 880 F.2d 709, 740(C.A.4) (" [i]f ground se, factor, certification''), sub nom. Anderson Aetna Casualty Surety 493 959, 110 377, 107 362 (1989); Malchman Davis, 761 893, 900 (C.A.2 1985) (certification broadened commonly held''), 475 1143, 106 1798, 343 (1986). 61 amendment expressly authorize conjunction "even though subdivision trial.'' Proposed Amendment 23(b), CXIX, CLIV CLV (Aug.1996) (Request Comment). publication proposal, voluminous public comments-many opposed skeptical of, amendment-were Standing Procedure. Letter Oppose signed 129 professors (May 28, 1996); Paul D. Carrington 21, 1996). matter. consider framed. IV 62 review role play, stated settlement.'' 626 799). statement, urge, incorrect. 63 limited modification respect. But, settlement; instead, Confronted request inquire tried, rule-those definitions-demand undiluted, heightened, Such asked certify opportunity, unfold. 23(c), (d).16 65 composed sets enforce. effect reviewers: commenters, Conference, Congress. §§2073, 2074. reviewed judicial inventiveness. Courts free amend ordered, tuned abridge right.'' 66 23(e), reads entirety: dismissed directs.'' action'' refers qualified Eisen, U.S., S.Ct., 2151-2152 (adequate eliminate notice). Subdivisions focus representatives. persists 67 provided criteria, emphasize, impractical impediments-checks shorn utility-in appraisals chancellor's foot kind-class 68 designation Coffee, Wars: Dilemma Action, 95 Colum. 1343, 1379-1380 (1995), investigation, see, Kamilewicz Bank Boston 1348, 1352 (C.A.7 (Easterbrook, rehearing en banc) (parties put staged performance''), 1569, 714 69 adopted-that Applying rulemakers set, conclude appraisal essentially correct. calculus, remand warranted amply demonstrates why-with table-the requirements.17 70 [common] predominate members.'' factors: "interest system.'' contend question, predominating disparate pivotal irrelevant 71 hold, relied. establishment __-__, settlement.18 518-519.19 "from adjudicated able satisfaction compromise.'' 7B §1797, 340-341. mission 73 Even experience, far demanding. 626-627. Given dispute health consequences standard. 74 highlighted undermining 75 "Class periods. Some asymptomatic asbestosis, mesothelioma history cigarette smoking, complicates causation 76 especially common, It unclear contract and, so, what suffer. incur expenses monitoring depend singular circumstances histories.'' 626. 77 Differences compound disparities. 627 Phillips Petroleum Shutts, 472 797, 823, 105 2965, 2980, 86 628 (1985)). 78 our 976, ("We requesting [Rule 23] due huge varying expenses, smoking histories, situations.''). Predominance test readily alleging consumer securities fraud violations antitrust laws. __. true, "mass accident'' "significant liability ways.'' "ordinarily appropriate'' treatment. categorically late 1970s, certifying increasing number. Resnik, From "Cases'' "Litigation,'' Law Contemp.Prob. 5, 17-19 (Summer 1991) (describing trend). warning, continues plain, 79 740 (1982). [A] "possess injury' 1896, 453 (1977) Schlesinger Reservists Stop War, 418 208, 216, 2925, 2930, 706 (1974)).20 pointed out, 1707, 319 (1980) ("In employment arise, employees applicants will, compete fringe seniority. Under classes.''). expossure-only 291. 23(b)(1)(B), reflect described, adjustment end; extinguished sum, complaints, constituency. another Second spoke precisely point: [W]here differences subclasses established, know approve consents unitary whom happen distinct subgroups. well thought aggregate adversity subgroups subgroup except understand solely respective subgroups.'' Southern Dist. 982 721, 742-743 1992), modified reh'g Findley, 993 1993). 84 here-either structure negotiations-that assessment, conclude, 85 Impediments emphasized, rendered problematic tie perceptible time 633; 999-1000 (Smith, dissenting). Many stressed, realize harm incur. fully appreciate afflictions foresight needed decide, intelligently, Family prey consortium. Yet category-future spouses children victims-could alerted membership. nothing 87 accord 633-634, amorphous. V 88 exposure.21 exemplifies, rulemakers' prescriptions endangered "those embrace enthusiastically just [they by] approach [the rule] distaste.'' C. 508 (5th ed.1994); 634 (suggesting resort less bold aggregation techniques, certifications). 89 *** reasons stated, 91 Affirmed. 92 STEVENS joins, part. 93 I basic certification,'' ante, problems me conclusion. believe lawsuits, suggests. give weight majority settlement-related predominate. Third, am uncertain second-guess having Fourth, tenor seems suggest unfair. fifth, further accept majority's suggestions "notice'' inadequate. fact-based, complex, difficult matters, matters initial gives broad leeway decisions, abuse discretion. Califano Yamasaki, 442 682, 703, 99 2545, 2558-2559, 176 (1979). Indeed, 300 findings reached five weeks comprehensive hearings. Accordingly, aside familiar litigants appeals we, "broad power discretion respect certification'' actions. Reiter Sonotone 330, 345, 2326, 2334, 931 (1979); Cooter Gell Hartmarx 496 384, 2447, 2459, 359 (1990) (district situated fact-dependent determinations context). rely record, ultimate conclusions, infected error. (holding "considered requirements) (emphasis added). There evidence point help 23. find, moreover, fact-related appellate Reno Bossier Parish School Bd., 1491, 1501, 730 explain so. 96 understates Between workers workplace-over years-but severe probably occurred three ago. 6-7 (Mar.1991) (Judicial Report); App. 781-782, 801; B. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical Legal 787-788 (4th ed.1996). hundred thousand 15% involved cancer 30% asbestosis. B.R. 710, 936-937 (E. S.D.N.Y.1991) (Joint Litigation). About thickening plaques-the apparently controversial. (One expert below testified "don't transform cancer'' "predictor[s] disease,'' 781.) serious injuries, 789 996, 1000 1986); Edley Weiler, Multi-Billion-Dollar Crisis, Legis. 383, 393 (1993) [U]p one-half being impairment. (and costs) impaired''). 6% filings year, subject delay twice suits. 7, 10-11. Delays, costs, random pattern noncompensation considering comments. (""Decisions deaths, billions dollars entangled strengths increasingly overshadowed weaknesses.' ensuing seen picture worsen: filings, larger backlogs, bankruptcies poorer prospects judgments-if obtained-can collected''') Rand Corporation Institute Justice); ("The associated unconscionable burden citing "of dollar, cents consumed Only victims''); ("Delays increase hourly rates. reduce insurance company's assets, thereby reducing By end phase [one case], least seven declared bankruptcy (as generally)''); 155 __-__. 98 intertwined lengthy year-long negotiation co-chairs Plaintiff's Multi-District (elected Members Court) 266-267, (E.D.Pa.1994); 660-662. "protracted vigorous'' partial estimated $1.3 billion 100,000 268, 287. exchange information'' "confidential data'' showing historical averages, settled, resources. 267. "Virtually provision'' "was negotiation,'' "changed substantially'' produced process, arms-length extraordinarily competent attorneys.'' 335. approving improved chances reduced total amount. previous system, according sickest often uncompensated valuable remain unimpaired mild disease.'' believed create later illnesses. mention suggests unusual defendants, expenditure reflects. leads reluctant wrong. obtain record job understandably, mistakenly, (and, important) consideration. 101 majority, reviewing "issues predominate,'' says "inquiry Ante, __ interpret sentence pre-settlement reconcile conclusion relevant'' relevant, important? e. g., 740(C.A.4), Beef Industry Antitrust 607 167, 177-178 1979), Iowa Processors, Meat Price Investigators Assn., 452 905, 3029, 405 (1981); §11.27, 11-54 11-55 ed.1992). "predominate'' abstract-without looking ensue, namely, Every group human beings, all, features differ. How contextual sort follow? guideposts whether, differences, objective-"economies expense.'' "sometimes probe behind pleadings coming rest question.'' 160, 2372, (1982); §1785, 107, saying counts way.'' 16. "add great expose diverging evident clear complaint'' "can should'' enhance "ability decisions.'' Asbestos, 975 103 mean gave much positive say compromise,'' because: 104 ensue-a primarily common. underscored running avoiding fees, delays. Of course, points Different times; smoking; laws lie ahead. Many, involve differences. diminished waived injured. 292. subclasses, own. "There subgroups, created, bubble surface ultimately, community exhausted protracted litigation.'' 66. Or permit commits court-reviewable appeals. itself reweigh fact-specific erroneous restudied today's mind. 108 concludes "representative parties'' "fairly finds "for payments,'' "tugs problem, exists cases. "between claimants'' "is almost always form periods discover injuries''); 34-35 ("Because remedies, "real entitled''') (citation whenever injures leaves fewer others. With least, consolation thoroughly facts, responsibility sacrificed. easily safeguard cold record. "What constitutes depends case.'' Procedure, §1765, 271. particularly when, baseline, ""real danger''' above. inadequacy example difficulty. assumes old worried now. are, arguments value. disagreement poorly resolve. 111 Further, details discussed value'' variety items as: tolling longer forced file premature time-barred''; waiver liability; payment sick, standards, avoids uncertainties, [including attorney's fees] system''; get sick,'' "has shown claims'' develops (many noncancerous bar claims). reasons, distinction "illusory.'' 317-318. 112 adjustment. are. —(To brief illustration, chastises extinguishing note "defendants' [settlement] values based, accordingly, Schedule ascribed reason,'' 278.) knowing vast fact-based deference decisionmaking decisions. Or, 113 agnostic rested complicated cast aside. helpful "fair endemic process'' superior 316 omitted); 335 inadequate demonstrated services speedy reasonably delayed, excessively relegated impersonal consolidations. disease. [these] have, states, prematurely mesothelioma. approves today defendants''); 279, 280 (settlement system'' "result paying faster rate, before''); 292; Legis., 405, 407 (finding [t]here secures gains sides'' "firmly endorse settlement''). endorsed Building Construction Trades Department), represents ""substantial percentage''' implementation 285. intend pass fairness, explored depth task, Appeals. 114 sufficiency implemented notices, wide-ranging television print campaign, international unions notify 312-313, 336. emphasized sick member. "confident'' because, "extensive expensive procedure,'' "over six million'' "received actual materials,'' "millions more'' media campaign. 312, 333, principle, conclusion, disagree, quickly disregarded. think precedents Reiter, 2334; 2558-2559. difficult. not. appropriate. tell. business trying determinations. suited instance, appeal review. reason conducted prior constituted reason, analyze vacating judgment, remanding syllabus Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, L.Ed. 499. asbestos-case requests. Insulation Material 906, 910 (JPML 1977); II), MDL-416 Mar. 1980) (unpublished order); 606 713, 1985); Ship MDL-676 4, 1986) Leon Blair MDL-702 6, 1987) order). Companies Inc.; A.P. Green Industries, Armstrong World Management Corp.; Certainteed C.E. Thurston Sons, Dana Ferodo America, Flexitallic, GAF Materials, I.U. North Maremont Services Nosroc Pfizer Quigley Co.; Shook Fletcher T N, PLC; Union Carbide Gypsum stopped manufacturing around 1975. comprehension issue, covered existed transfer. Also third-party insurers, insurers liable conditioned, still Prods., 93-0215, 1994 WL 502475 (E.D.Pa., Sept.2, (denying compel discovery). defines follows: (or representatives) territories working aboard military, merchant, passenger ships), member, bear who, reside territories, damage, death Defendant(s) entities omissions liability). spouses, parents, children, relatives paragraph liability).'' 13-14. percent mesothelioma, condition'' "extraordinary.'' Average expenditures "extraordinary''; extraordinary receive, average, $300,000. respondents overlapping "Windsor Group,'' New Jersey "White "Cargile Group.'' Margaret Balonis, objector, respondent Balonis husband, Casimir, diagnosed May 1994, expiration period, infra, Balonises Maryland contempt violating Casimir died October 1996. Brief Respondents 9-11. 23(a)(1) "so "questions [must be] [be] Recoveries spanned wide range. assert, California, average $419,674-or 209% $200,000 typed George Windsor 5-6, 461). dispositive-at yet, return second look. post, genuinely doubt, loom larger. Concerning $50,000 claim, Metro-North Commuter Buckley, --- (Federal Employers' Stat. 65, amended, §51 seq., common-law principles, railworker recover distress lump-sum monitoring). Portions appear assume way-in dissent's meaning, disagree. Settlement, inevitably signal aired, 626-635 sometimes more, inspect fact. enormously respect, "claims defenses'' "typical words context-just context 24(b)(2) intervention-"manifestly refer impending suit.'' Diamond Charles, 476 54, 76-77, 1697, 1711, (1986) (O'CONNOR, judgment). note, involves capable supporting 318 291, 40. proceed adequacy-of-representation "tend[s] merge'' "serve maintenance economical plaintiff's interrelated protected absence.'' 157, 2370, heading competency 13. Like decline adequacy-of-counsel discretely enormous forceful argument. O'CONNOR

Category: 8