Document: 511 U.S. 117114 S.Ct. 1359128 L.Ed.2d 33 TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Petitionersv.Walter Thomas BROWN and Jeffrey L. Dziewit. No. 92-1988. Supreme Court of the United States April 4, 1994. PER CURIAM. 1 For reasons discussed below, we have concluded that deciding this case would require us to resolve a constitutional question may be entirely hypothetical, accordingly dismiss writ as improvidently granted. 2 * In 1985, Federal Trade Commission initiated enforcement proceedings against petitioners, six title insurance companies, alleging they conspired fix prices in 13 including Arizona Wisconsin. Shortly after that, private parties affected filed 12 different "tag-along" antitrust class actions, seeking treble damages injunctive relief. Those suits were consolidated for pretrial purposes pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (the federal multidistrict litigation statute), transferred District Eastern Pennsylvania MDL 633. 3 January 1986, spurred on by an intervening decision substantially weakened claims see Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. States, 471 48, 105 1721, 85 36 (1985), petitioners representatives 633 reached settlement. The settlement extinguished all money those " 'purchasers insureds, who purchased or received . from any underwriter with respect real estate located thirteen Affected during period 1, 1981 December 31, 1985,' included respondents. re Real Estate Title Settlement Services Antitrust Litigation, 1986-1 Cases ¶ 67,149, pp. 62,921, 62,924, 1986 WL 6531 (ED Pa.1986) (quoting agreement). To plaintiffs, agreement awarded relief, increased amount coverage policy members bought period, specified policies might purchase future 1-year payment attorney's fees costs lawsuit. provisionally certified (as stipulated petitioners) under Rules Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) (b)(2), accepted 4 At ensuing final hearing, State Wisconsin objected proposed both member parens patriae its resident members, claiming action could not Rule 23(b)(2) because relief sought complaints was primarily monetary. also claimed (and joined Arizona, patriae) due process required opportunity opt out class. ultimately rejected these objections, classes 23(b)(1)(A) (b)(2),* Third Circuit affirmed without opinion, 815 F.2d 695 (1987) (judgment order), denied certiorari, 485 909, 108 1085, 99 243 (1988). 5 1990, respondent Brown present behalf consumers, had rates title-search services violation laws. granted summary judgment ground, among others, respondents, suit, bound entered Ninth reversed, accepting respondents' contention it violate accord res judicata effect involved (or perhaps claims), plaintiff previous suit been afforded right claims. 982 386, 392 (CA9 1992). Before Circuit, respondents did indeed not) challenge whether properly (b)(2). And Court, only single question—viz., "[w]hether court refuse enforce prior judgment, 23, grounds absent which asserts monetary their behalf." Pet. Cert. i. II 6 That is no general consequence if, such do so Procedure. Such exist actions damages, can 23(b)(3), permits opt-out, not. See 23(c)(2) (c)(3). at least substantial possibility—and normally preliminary nonconstitutional before proceeding claim. New York City Transit Authority Beazer, 440 568, 582-583, 1355, 1364, 59 587 (1979). law judicata, however, prevents being litigated here. It conclusively determined fit within (b)(2); even though determination wrong, conclusive upon parties, alternative using instead Constitution means imposing opt-out requirement longer available. 7 most obvious unavailability is, suggested, our resolution posited quite unnecessary law, virtually practical fact, except particular litigants. Another consequence, less apparent, resolving assumption proper certification lead wrong result. If Rules, generally are affirmatively enacted into Congress, §§ 2072(a), (b), 2074(a), entitled great deference constitutionality statutes, see, e.g., Rostker Goldberg, 453 57, 64, 101 2646, 2651, 69 478 (1981); Walters National Assn. Radiation Survivors, 473 305, 319-320, 3180, 3188, 87 220 come imprimatur rulemaking authority Court. case, must assume either lack circumstances decreed (though erroneous holding was). make former approve, mistaken congressional acquiescence, neither nor Congress independently think constitutional. latter assumption, announce rule good other action. Neither option attractive. 8 one reason proceed achieve justice case. Even if presented hypothetical everyone else, seem importance But ordinarily sufficient granting certiorari—even when pronouncements picture. Moreover, matters developed clear will difference On day certiorari informed designed moot petition, now awaits approval 9 circumstances, best 10 Justice O'CONNOR, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE KENNEDY join, dissenting. 11 We consider specific question: "Whether decides answer based speculation about ground record available parties. From I respectfully dissent. Respondents styled p. Pa.1986), aff'd, 696 (CA3 1987), cert. denied, subsequently brought asserting some same held adequately represented action, because, given identity claims, judicata. App. 20a-28a. Appeals reversed. 386 (1992). agreed id., 390-391, but nevertheless relitigate petitioners: "Because [respondents] litigation, hold there minimal [respondents'] damage barred judicata." Id., 392. concludes correctness Circuit's interpretation "is not." Ante, ____. words, declines certified—an issue petitioners' favor more than five years ago, certiorari. speculates therefore unavailable relied, review briefed argued, necessary Our prudential avoiding questions has application errs relying it. 14 Court's assertion "our fact," ante, ____, unsound. lower courts consistently presence does preclude 7A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Practice Procedure, 2d 1775, 463-470 (1986 Supp.1992). Whether decisions correct (a need not, should decide today), indicate number exactly position Under rationale every them go defendants original individuals, corporations, governments successfully defended appropriate settlements, subject relitigation individual rightly dispute characterization inconsequential. 15 likewise incorrect suggesting "may law." Unless until contrary adopted, continue certify (b)(2) notwithstanding claims; announced below implicated Circuit. Due Process Clause, presumably applies States; although Phillips Petroleum Co. Shutts, 472 797, 2965, 86 628 state court, expressly "limited seek bind known plaintiffs concerning wholly predominately judgments." 811, n. 3, S.Ct., 2974, 3. rule, contrast, whenever "substantial claims" asserted. F.2d, broad-ranging consequences appropriate. 16 Finally, agree suggestion posture "lead result" Clause requires involving damages. As comes us, coupled whatever presumption entitled, "approve constitutional." Either constitutionally required, isn't. while reserving how construed. While convenient, certainly usual practice, first, question, then, my view, well significant expenditures resources litigants, amici, outweighs concerns relies. 17 When fairly joined, decision, important enough warrant review, avoid it—particularly basis speculative alternate rests exclusively exists. thoroughly argued Certification prosecution separate create risk "inconsistent varying adjudications establish incompatible standards conduct party opposing class." "the acted refused act applicable class, thereby making corresponding declaratory whole."

Category: 8