Citing Section 1651 of the Federal Code of Judicial Procedure (28 U.S.C. §1651 (2003)), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a district court judge must enforce the Seventh Circuit’s prior judgment de-certifying nationwide classes covering multiple models of Ford vehicles and Firestone tires sold between 1990 and 2001 by issuing an injunction that prevents all members of putative national classes, and their lawyers, from again attempting to have nationwide classes certified over defendants’ opposition with respect to the same or similar claims. In re: Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 333 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2003).

In that case, the Seventh Circuit, finding the litigation unsuitable for class action litigation, reversed a trial court’s decision certifying a class comprised of owners of more than 65 million tires and 3 million vehicles, comprised of many different models. After the United States Supreme Court denied class counsel’s petition for certiorari, lawyers representing the plaintiffs sought class certification of the same nationwide classes in other jurisdictions, filing at least 5 other lawsuits.

The defendants in the action, Ford and Firestone, asked the United States District Court to enforce the Seventh Circuit’s decision by enjoining other class actions. The district court denied the motion and defendants brought an appeal. In reversing the trial court’s decision to deny injunctive relief, the Seventh Circuit ruled that its prior decision, de-certifying the class of status, had preclusive effect as a final judgment on a contested issue. In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that unnamed class members have the status of parties for many purposes and are bound by the decision whether or not the court otherwise would have had personal jurisdiction over them. The court noted just as they received the fruits of the representative class members victory, so an adverse decision is conclusive against them.

In an effort to overcome the preclusive effect of the decision, class counsel argued that because the district court did not offer unnamed class members an opportunity to opt out of the certification decision, the court could not now preclude those members from pursuing their own class action litigation and other forms. The Seventh Circuit rejected this argument reasoning that no one is entitled to opt out of the certification process, a decision necessarily made on class-wide, all-or-none basis; one opts out of a certified class. A person who opts out receives the right to go it alone, not to launch a competing class action. Based on this reasoning, the court ruled every person included in the district court’s class definition still has the right to proceed on his own. What such a person now lacks is the right to represent a national class of others similarly situated; that is the upshot of a fully contested litigation in which every potential class member was adequately represented on this issue.

Based on this, the court held “our prior judgment is binding in personam with respect to the unnamed class members. The district judge must enforce that judgment by issuing an injunction that prevents all members of the punitive national classes, and their lawyers, from again attempting to have nationwide classes certified over defendants’ opposition with respect to the same claims.”