Opinion ID: 2834098
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Section 51.014(a)(3) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows the interlocutory appeal of class certification orders. Although interlocutory appeals are generally final in the courts of appeals, this Court has jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal if the court of appeals “holds differently from a prior decision of another court of appeals or of the supreme court.” Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 22.001(a)(2), 22.225(b)(3), (c). [4] “[T]wo decisions hold differently or conflict when the rulings in the two cases are so far upon the same state of facts that the decision of one case is necessarily conclusive of the decision in the other.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Stromboe , 102 S.W.3d 675, 687 (Tex. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Christy v. Williams , 298 S.W.2d 565, 567 (Tex. 1957)). In Intratex Gas Co. v. Beeson , we held that the trial court abused its discretion by certifying a fail-safe class. 22 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. 2000). A fail-safe class is a class bound only by a judgment for the plaintiffs. Id. at 402. In such a case, “[a] determination that the defendant is not liable . . . obviates the class, thereby precluding the proposed class members from being bound by the judgment.” Id. at 405. We rejected that outcome because Rule 42(b) was never intended to be an exception to res judicata. In this case, the court of appeals held that the class’s claim under the Texas Securities Act met the predominance requirements of Rule 42 even if the class abandoned other potential claims to meet that requirement. The court explained: “‘Clients who have claims not raised in this class action because the claims are unsuitable for class treatment can bring those claims on an individual basis, and res judicata will not bar those claims because absent class members had no opportunity to litigate those issues in this lawsuit.’” 105 S.W.3d at 725 (quoting Sullivan v. Chase Inv. Servs. of Boston, Inc. , 79 F.R.D. 246, 265 (N.D. Cal. 1978)). The court of appeals’ creation of a special exception to established principles of claim preclusion conflicts with this Court’s holding in Beeson . Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over this appeal.