Court Opinion

ID: 9653040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:37:31.087289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:56.002062
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The appellees complain in their motion for rehearing that this Court has not adequately addressed its general contention that this action was properly taken as a settlement class. The Supreme Court used the term settlement class in General Motors Corp. v. Bloyed, 916 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.1996), *34but the use of this term did not create an entirely new and different standard for application of the rules governing the certification of a class. The Supreme Court did not adopt some lesser standard for the review of a class certification when a settlement was simultaneously proposed. The Supreme Court specifically said, “The trial court must assume its role as guardian of the class not only in approving class settlements, but also in deciding whether to certify a class in the first place.”
The issue of notice and due process simply did not arise in Bloyed, because notice had been sent to the prospective class members, along with opt-out information, before the class was certified. We find no language in Texas statutes, rules, or case law creating some separate category for a settlement class. Our review indicates that generally the term is used as a shorthand rendering of the concept that a class was certified and a settlement is proffered.
The Court in Bloyed does state that it is possible to resolve the question of whether to certify a class and review the proposed settlement in a single proceeding, and then sets out the Rule 42 standards to be employed in that situation. Bloyed, 916 S.W.2d at 958. This does not reflect any intent to create a different standard for review of a class certified for the purposes of a class settlement rather than a trial.
In Bloyed, the Court cited as a primary authority the case of In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768, 798 (3d Cir.1995). In that opinion, the Third Circuit Court acknowledged that some federal courts appear to have assumed that lower standards apply when certifying a class in settlement class cases, but specifically rejected such standards because these lower standards failed to comply with the federal rules governing class certification. The Bloyed opinion contains language approving federal cases in which the need for great caution in class settlements is discussed in depth, and in which due process was carefully upheld in order to preserve the rights and interests of the proposed class. Bloyed, 916 S.W.2d at 952-55, 957-59.
The present case is not factually on point with Bloyed In the present case, the class was certified, without notice to the parties, without due process protections to class members, in what purported to be a mandatory (or a non-opt-out) context.
The motions for rehearing are overruled.