Court Opinion

ID: 9757735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:57:08.009091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:43.716238
License: Public Domain

Justice ROBINSON,
dissenting.
In my view, the approach which calls for “[ljimited collateral review”28 of a foreign class action judgment, which approach this Court has now adopted, is too deferential to the fairness determination made by the class action court; it is insufficiently respectful of the right of the individual litigant to question in the court of his or her initial choosing (i.e., the forum court) the adequacy of the notice, if any, that was given to that litigant in the context of a class action proceeding in a foreign jurisdiction. It is my view that the approach which allows for broad collateral review29 of the foreign judgment from a due process perspective is far more consistent with traditional American jurisprudence regarding every person’s fundamental due process right to notice.30 I believe that the court of the litigant’s initial choosing should be empowered to inquire as to the due process foundation of the foreign class action judgment that is introduced for the *768purpose of ousting the forum court’s jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata.31 However, in view of the fact that my colleagues have reached a different conclusion regarding this significant and widely debated32 legal issue, I have no choice but simply to record my respectful dissent.

. Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 179 F.3d 641, 648-49 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1004, 120 S.Ct. 497, 145 L.Ed.2d 384 (1999); see also Hospitality Management Associates, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 356 S.C. 644, 591 S.E.2d 611 (2004).

. See, e.g., Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co., 273 F.3d 249 (2nd Cir.2001), aff'd in pertinent part by an equally divided Court, 539 U.S. 111, 123 S.Ct. 2161, 156 L.Ed.2d 106 (2003).

. See, e.g., Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S.Ct. 1708, 164 L.Ed.2d 415 (2006); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).

. It should go without saying that I refer to any judgment rendered at the conclusion of a class action in a foreign jurisdiction and not just to the judgment at issue in this case.

. See Wilkes v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co., 587 Pa. 590, 902 A.2d 366, 390 (2006) (Cappy, C.J., concurring) (citing to numerous cases which Chief Justice Cappy submits are reflective of the "spirited debate amongst courts and commentators regarding whether a foreign court's class action due process determination is subject to collateral review in another state court”); see generally 18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4455 (2d ed.2002).