Law Center Search Results

The Supreme Court 6/9/03 chose not to resolve a circuit split on the questions of whether res judicata bars relitigation of adequacy of representation through a collateral attack on a class action settlement and, if it does not, whether adequacy of representation should be determined as of the time of the original litigation or in view of subsequent developments in the law and facts. Veterans who claimed to suffer post-1994 injuries as a result of exposure to Agent Orange collaterally attacked a $180 million class settlement benefiting veterans with pre-1994 claims. One group (“the Isaacson respondents”) filed in state court and were removed to federal court, while another (“the Stephenson respondents”) filed directly in federal court. The Second Circuit held that the veterans had not been adequately represented in the class action and that res judicata did not bar relitigation of the issue. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment as to the Isaacson respondents and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002), which held that the All Writs Act is not a substitute for original jurisdiction and therefore cannot provide an independent ground for removal. As to the Stephenson respondents, an equally-divided Court affirmed the Second Circuit. This case is important to parties involved in class action litigation in the federal courts as well as parties seeking removal of cases from state courts.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in this case.

Decision Below: 273 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2001)