About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

44 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 545 (2012-2013)
Due Process and the Future of Class Actions

handle is hein.journals/luclj44 and id is 565 raw text is: Due Process and the Future of Class Actions
Alexandra D. Lahav*
INTRODUCTION
How should due process doctrine constrain the class action device
and other forms of aggregate litigation that look and feel like class
actions?    Since courts' conceptions of due process determine the scope
of collective litigation, this short Essay considers these conceptions of
due process and asks what ought they be. Its main contribution is to
demonstrate how conceptions of due process from other areas of the
procedural law map on to class actions, and to begin an inquiry into
what is missing from these conceptions.
Whatever due process doctrine generally requires, for class actions it
requires this: No absent class member can be bound by a class action
judgment without adequate representation.2 In money damages class
actions, absent class members are entitled to notice and the right to opt
out.3 Due process ideas matter even in court decisions ostensibly based
only on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,4 because how courts read
Rule 23 appears to depend on their conceptions of how much process is
* Professor, University of Connecticut School of Law. Thanks to Mathilde Cohen and Sachin
Pandya for their helpful comments on previous drafts, the participants in the conference at the
Loyola University Chicago Law School, and the editors of the Loyola University Chicago Law
Journal.
1. These include quasi class actions, a term recently popularized by Judge Weinstein to
describe aggregate settlement practices. See In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 424 F. Supp. 2d
488, 491-92 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). See also Charles Silver & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Quasi-Class
Action Method of Managing Multi-District Litigations: Problems and a Proposal, 63 VAND. L.
REV. 105, 116-17 (2010).
2. Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 43 (1940) (holding that a class action cannot bind a litigant
absent adequate representation); Stephenson v. Dow Chem. Co., 273 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2001)
(permitting Agent Orange class members who had not opted out and whose injuries manifested
after the Agent Orange settlement closed to sue), affd in part, vacated in part, 539 U.S. 111
(2003).
3. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 812 (1985). In injunctive class actions, the
Court has not yet held that absent members are entitled to notice and a right to opt out as a due
process matter, and the federal rules require neither. See id. at 812 n.3 (declining to rule on the
question of due process requirements for injunctive or other class actions); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2557 (2011) (holding that where monetary relief is not incidental to a
claim for injunctive relief, an injunctive class cannot be certified under Rule 23(b)(2)).
4. FED. R. Civ. P. 23.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most