Opinion ID: 1280542
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Due Process Rights of Absent Class Members

Text: Green Tree and the Amici argue that the absent class members' due process rights were violated by the class-wide arbitration of their claims. The Bazzle and the Lackey plaintiffs, on the other hand, claim the rights of the absent class members were adequately protected through proper notice. Regardless, both classes of plaintiffs argue that this issue is not preserved for review because Green Tree failed to raise it in a timely fashion. We agree that the issue was not preserved for review, and, further, find no evidence that the rights of the class members were not protected in this case. It is well-settled that an issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal. In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue must be (1) raised to and ruled upon by the lower court, (2) by the appellant, (3) in a timely manner, and (4) with sufficient specificity. See I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 497 S.E.2d 731 (1998); Toal, Vafai, & Muckenfuss, Appellate Practice in South Carolina at 66 (S.C. Bar 1999). In Bazzle, Green Tree first raised the issue of the absent class members' due process rights in its motion to vacate the arbitrator's final award. Green Tree argued vaguely that the Arbitrator violated certain due process protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment and the South Carolina Constitution. To be preserved, the issue must have been raised and ruled upon by the trial court at the time the class was certified. I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant . As Green Tree gave the trial court no opportunity to address this issue, it is procedurally barred. Id. Similarly, in Lackey, Green Tree did not raise the due process rights of the absent class members when it moved to decertify the class before the arbitrator. Green Tree raised this issue for the first time when it argued that the arbitrator's final award should be vacated. Because it did not give the arbitrator an opportunity to rule upon this issue, Green Tree failed to preserve it for review before this Court. I'On; Wilder. Green Tree has not articulated precisely how it believes the class members' due process rights have been violated. In any case, the class members' rights appear to have been properly protected by the notice given to all of them. [24] Green Tree was given the opportunity to review and comment on the notice sent and did not voice an objection to it at that time. Although protection of the due process rights of absent class members is an essential component in all class actions, and one which may necessitate particular attention in classwide arbitrations, Green Tree has not presented the Court with the means to address it properly. [25]