Smith v. Bayer Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Federal Courts

564 U.S. 299 (2011)

Updated July 9, 2026

fedcourtsAnti-Injunction Actpreclusionclass actionsrelitigation exceptionissue preclusionnonparty preclusionclass certification

Facts

McCollins sued Bayer over Baycol and sought certification of a class of West Virginia purchasers; after removal and transfer to federal court, the district court denied certification under Federal Rule 23 because individualized injury issues predominated, and it dismissed McCollins's claims. Separately, Smith had filed a similar Baycol suit in West Virginia state court and sought certification of a class of West Virginia purchasers under West Virginia Rule 23. Bayer then asked the federal court to enjoin the state court from hearing Smith's certification motion, arguing that the federal denial of class certification precluded relitigation of the issue. The federal court granted the injunction, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue

Whether the Anti-Injunction Act's relitigation exception allowed the federal court to enjoin the West Virginia state court from considering Smith's class-certification request based on the earlier federal denial of class certification in McCollins. More specifically, the question was whether the state certification issue was the same as the federal one and whether Smith, an unnamed member of a proposed but uncertified class, was bound by the earlier federal judgment.

Rule

The Anti-Injunction Act's relitigation exception authorizes a federal court to enjoin a state proceeding only when necessary to protect or effectuate its judgments, and only if preclusion is clear beyond peradventure. For issue preclusion to support such an injunction, the issue in state court must be the same as the issue actually decided in federal court, and the person to be bound must have been a party to the federal suit or fall within a recognized, limited exception to the rule against nonparty preclusion. A proposed, uncertified, or rejected class action does not bind nonparties; only a properly certified class action may do so.

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 St. Louis, Nora Feld sought certification of a consumer class under Federal Rule 23 against MidRiver Nutrition, alleging deceptive labeling of a supplement. The court denied certification because it treated any need for individualized proof of reliance as defeating predominance. Later, Leo Mendez filed a similar class action in Missouri state court under a state rule with nearly identical text, but Missouri's highest court has said its predominance inquiry requires a balancing of common and individual issues and may permit certification despite some individualized proof.

May the federal court enjoin the Missouri state proceeding under the relitigation exception to protect its earlier denial of class certification?

Explanation. The relitigation exception is strict and narrow. An injunction is proper only if preclusion is clear beyond peradventure, including that the issue in state court is the same issue actually decided in federal court. Similar rule text is only a starting point; if the state courts interpret the rule differently, the issue is different. Here, Missouri uses a balancing predominance inquiry unlike the stricter federal approach used earlier, so the same-issue requirement is not satisfied. (Derived from Smith v. Bayer Corp. (n.d.).)