Class Certification’s Preclusive Effects

University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 159, pp. 203-230, PENNumbra, 2011

Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-17

28 Pages Posted: 27 Nov 2010 Last revised: 18 May 2011

Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law School

Date Written: November 26, 2010

Abstract

In September 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the controversial Baycol litigation. The central question will be whether, subsequent to a denial of class certification, preclusion can prevent an absentee from seeking to certify another class action on a similar claim. This Article answers that question in the affirmative, while warning that the preclusion is very limited in scope. It arrives at this answer by analogizing to the more established doctrine of jurisdiction to determine no jurisdiction: if a court’s finding of no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person can preclude, then a finding of no authority to proceed as a class action should be preclusive - on that precise issue of no authority, but not on anything else.

Keywords: class action, certification, preclusion, res judicata, Baycol, Bayer

JEL Classification: K41, K13

Suggested Citation

Clermont, Kevin M., Class Certification’s Preclusive Effects (November 26, 2010). University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 159, pp. 203-230, PENNumbra, 2011; Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-17 . Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1715646

Kevin M. Clermont (Contact Author)

Cornell Law School ( email )

Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
United States
607-255-5189 (Phone)
607-255-7193 (Fax)

Paper statistics

Downloads
153
Rank
157,669
Abstract Views
1,369