Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedureclass actionssettlement classpredominanceadequacyasbestosRule 23settlement class

Facts

CCR, a consortium of 20 former asbestos manufacturers, negotiated with lawyers representing many pending asbestos claimants to create a global settlement covering people who had not yet filed suit but had been exposed, or whose family members had been exposed, to CCR asbestos products. The proposed class included both currently injured claimants and exposure-only claimants, but no subclasses were created and the same representatives and counsel purported to represent everyone. The settlement created fixed compensation categories, excluded compensation for some claims, imposed caps and case-flow limits, omitted inflation adjustments, and allowed only a small number of back-end opt outs each year. The District Court certified the class for settlement only under Rule 23(b)(3), but the Court of Appeals vacated because Rule 23 was not satisfied.

Issue

May a federal court certify a settlement-only nationwide asbestos class under Rule 23(b)(3) based largely on the desirability of a global settlement, when the class includes both currently injured and exposure-only claimants with materially different interests? More specifically, does settlement relax Rule 23's predominance and adequacy requirements?

Rule

A settlement-only class must satisfy Rule 23's certification requirements. In the settlement context, a court need not consider trial manageability under Rule 23(b)(3)(D), but the other requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), especially predominance and adequacy of representation, demand undiluted, and even heightened, attention. Predominance focuses on the legal and factual questions that preexist any settlement, and a shared interest in a fair settlement cannot itself satisfy Rule 23(b)(3). Adequacy requires structural assurance that class representatives can fairly protect class members whose interests materially diverge.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Chicago, a group of battery manufacturers and plaintiffs' lawyers propose a settlement-only nationwide class for people allegedly exposed to toxic dust from the companies' facilities. The judge finds the settlement attractive because it would avoid years of litigation and certify the class without closely analyzing Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b)(3), reasoning that settlement makes those requirements less important.

Which is the best assessment of the certification ruling?

Explanation. A court may certify a settlement-only class, but settlement does not eliminate the need for full compliance with Rule 23's certification requirements. The majority held that Rule 23(e) is an additional requirement, not a substitute for Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Courts may not certify simply because the settlement seems fair or desirable.