Why does the doctrine of res judicata apply in class suits?

Why are absent parties bound by the judgment in a class suit?

How does the history of res judicata relate to the history of the class suit?
Is it res judicata?
What is a class?
What is the nature of a cause of action in class suits?
Jurisdiction
Judgment on the merits
A class is defned by a vinculum.
Vinculum
The "Vinculum"
Why is there a constitutional right to travel?
Why do class suits have a res judicata efect on absent parties?
The elements of res judicata are:
1. Jurisdiction
2. Executory judgment
3. Judgment on the merits
4. Identity of parties
5. Identity of subject matter, and
6. Identity of cause of action
whereby the absence of identity of cause of action will
Res judicata erga singulum
Res judicata erga omnes
Why do class suits have res judicata efects on absent parties?
Why do class suits have res judicata efects?
Res Judicata Erga Omnes
Inter alios
Why do class suits bind absent parties?
Are absent parties bound by judgments in class actions because of res
judicata, or are they bound precisely because the requirements of res
judicata do not apply?
Does the class action modify the concept of res judicata, or does res
judicata modify the concept of the class action?
Does the binding efect of absent parties class action exemplify res judicata
Should class suits conform to res judicata
Does the binding efect "ultra partes" of a class action judgment exemplify
res judicata? If not, why do class suits bind absent parties?
Res Judicata Erga Omnes
Res Judicata Ultra Partes
A judgment in a class action binds efects "ultra partes" (beyond the
parties). Does this exemplify res judicata? If not, why do class suits bind
absent parties?
Are absent parties bound by judgments in class actions because of res
judicata, or are they bound precisely because the requirements of res
judicata do not apply?
Do judgments in class actions bind absent parties?
Do judgments in class actions bind absent parties because of res judicata?
Or are they bound precisely because the requirements of res judicata do
not apply?
Do judgments in class actions
Does this exemplify the concept of res judicata? Or is it a radical departure
from
Is this compatible with res judicata? If not, should class action judgments
Traditional principles of res judicata in individual litigation con- stitute a
serious obstacle to the transplant of class actions into civil law systems. It is
a well-established principle of procedure in civil- law jurisdictions that res
judicata binds only the parties to the pro- ceeding and that it neither
benefts nor prejudices third parties. This principle is refected in the old
Roman Law formula res inter alios acta vel iudicata aliis non nocet nec
prodest.238
---
Why do class suits bind absent parties?
of res judicata, or do judgments bind the absent parties precisely because
res judicata does not hold? Either the class action judgment exemplifes or
is an exemption from the doctrine of res judicata.
Do judgments in class actions bind absent parties because of res judicata,
or do judgments bind the absent parties precisely because res judicata
does not hold?
Is the binding efect of class action judgments on absent parties an
exemplifcation of res judicata, or an exception?
---
However, problems arise when courts rely on the concept of "res judicata"
to explain the preclusive efect of class action judgments as if the distinction
ends here. The less glaring diference, and the more important one, is the
concept of "cause of action".
It is for this reason that there is a preclusive efect of the class action
judgment on absent parties. It is also this feature that dispenses with the
compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.
The efect of this substitution dispenses with the rule on compulsory joinder
of indispensable parties.
The class action is a recognized exception to the rule on compulsory
joinder.
But the more problematic diference
---
Why do class suits bind absent parties?
Do judgments in class actions bind absent parties because of "res
judicata"?
The doctrine of "res judicata" provides that judgments only bind parties to
the proceeding. By way of exception, the class action judgment has a
binding efect "ultra partes", which precludes absent parties from instituting
the same claim in a separate proceeding after the judgment in the class
suit. Other jurisdictions call this efect "res judicata erga omnes". It is the
central feature of the class action device, without which the class action
loses its essence and becomes a mere joinder device.
"Res judicata erga omnes" radically departs from the general doctrine of
"res judicata". The most obvious diference is that the concept of "class"
substitutes the element of identity of parties. However, this only tells us
"who" may be bound by the class action judgment, which includes absent
parties. It does not tell us why claim preclusion is possible. The answer to
that lies in the concept of "identity of cause of action" as a requirement for
claim preclusion in class actions.
Hence, the original question "why do class suits bind absent parties" is two-
tiered:
(1) How does the binding efect "ultra partes" of a class action judgment
reconcile with the principle of "res inter alios acts vel indicate aliis non nocet
ned proudest"?
(2) What is the meaning of "identity of cause of action" in res judicata erga
omnes?
---
If they are incompatible, can "res judicata erga omnes" nevertheless be
justifed by the same philosophy of fairness that animates the classic
doctrine of res judicata?
Gaps between these concepts dictate the remedies that are and should be
available to absent parties in a class action. The frst part of the essay
outlines these gaps. The second part outlines the remedies in the form of a
draft codifed procedure for class actions. These procedural remedies
revolve around the theme of protecting absent parties from the preclusive
efects of class action judgments.
---
"Res judicata erga omnes" radically departs from the general doctrine of
"res judicata". The most obvious diference is that the concept of "class"
substitutes the element of identity of parties. However, this only tells us
"who" may be bound by the class action judgment, which includes absent
parties. It does not tell us why absent parties are bound. The answer to that
lies in the problem of "cause of action" in class actions. This problem is
expressed by two mutually exclusive propositions:
(1) Judgments in class actions preclude absent parties from asserting the
same cause of action in another suit.
(2) Identity of cause of action is not a requirement of class action.
If one is true, the other is false.
First, if judgments in class actions preclude absent parties from asserting
the same cause of action in another suit, it follows that there is identity of
cause of action between the class suit and the subsequent suit.
Second, if identity of cause of action is not required in a class action, then
there can be no preclusion to speak of.
This problem is illusory. 2 kinds of claim preclusion
(1)
(2) If identity of cause of action is not required, there can be no claim
preclusion on absent parties. Without claim preclusion, the suit is not a
class action.
(3) If identity of cause of action is required, then
If identity of cause of action is required,
If this is true, it follows that there must be identity of cause of action.
TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE PROPOSITIONS
(1) Judgments in class action preclude absent parties from asserting the
same cause of action in another suit.
(2) Identity of cause of action is not a requirement of class action.
It does not resolve why there is claim preclusion upon absent parties in the
frst place. The answer to this lies with the question of whether "identity of
cause of action" is required in a class action.
(3)
(2) The elements of "res judicata" include identity of
The answer to that lies with the less obvious diference, which is more
important: the element of "identity of cause of action" in the class suit.
"COULD HAVE BEEN"
On the one hand, the vinculum that defnes a "class" is broad. On the other
hand
Class action judgments bind absent parties.
Absent parties are bound if there is identity of cause of action.
Is identity of cause of action required in a class action?
However, there can be a class action even without identity of cause of
action.
If class actions
Therefore, the distinction does not end here. The second and more
important diference is the transformation of the concept of "cause of
action" in the class action.
The answer to that lies with the element of "cause of action". This is a
problem because a "class action" can be instituted without
"Why do class suits bind absent parties?"
"Is identity of cause of action required to have"
If identity of cause of action is not required, what exactly are absent parties
precluded from?
"Is identity of cause of action required and possible in class actions?"
because the vinculum that defnes a class is not , and (2) on the other
hand, there must be identity of cause of action in order to trigger a res
judicata.
It tells us nothing about claim preclusion. However, the distinction does not
end here, for the more important and less obvious diference is the
transformation of the concept of "cause of action" in the class action.
If they are compatible, how does the binding efect "ultra partes" of a class
action judgment reconcile with the principle of "res inter alios acts vel
indicate aliis non nocet ned proudest"?
If they are incompatible, can "res judicata erga omnes" nevertheless be
justifed by the same philosophy of fairness that animates the classic
doctrine of res judicata?
Gaps between these concepts dictate the remedies that are and should be
available to absent parties in a class action. The frst part of the essay
outlines these gaps. The second part outlines the remedies in the form of a
draft codifed procedure for class actions. These procedural remedies
revolve around the theme of protecting absent parties from the preclusive
efects of class action judgments.
However, the distinction does not end here, for the more important and less
obvious diference is the transformation of the concept of "cause of action"
in the class action.
This feature also dispenses with compulsory joinder rules.
The second part of the paper proposes a draft special procedure for class
actions. This draft codifes the remedies culled from the frst part. These
procedural remedies revolve around the theme of protecting absent parties
from the preclusive efects of class action judgments.
The frst part of this paper seeks to reconcile these two conficting concepts
on the preclusive efect of judgments. This is important because
Yet judicial pronouncements and legal scholarship consistently rely on the
classic res judicata doctrine in explaining the preclusive efect of class
action upon absent parties, as if the only element that is missing in the res
judicata doctrine in class actions is "identity of parties", ignoring the more
problematic concept of cause of action in class actions.
The more obvious departure is the substitution of the element of identity of
parties by the concept of "class". But the less glaring diference, and the
more important one, is how the concept of "class" is determined by the
"vinculum" that ties all members of the class.
The frst is the requirement of "identity of parties". The less glaring
departure, and the more important one, is the requirement of "identity of
cause of action."
---
If so, how does the class action device transform the meaning of "identity of
parties" and "identity of cause of action"?
This is the foundation of the general concept of "res judicata", expressed as
"res inter alios acts vel indicate aliis non nocet ned proudest".
----
---
Technical terms:
Res judicata
Res judicata "erga omnes"
---
If the former is true, how does
But if the latter is true, then
---
BASELINE of commonality
the requirement of "identity of cause of action" becomes difcult to meet
because the baseline criteria that unite members of a "class" are not based
on cause of action.
---
Classic res judicata
Res judicata erga omnes
---
WHY DO CLASS ACTIONS BIND ABSENT PARTIES?
Do judgments in class actions bind absent parties because of "res
judicata"?
Generally, only parties to the proceeding are precluded from asserting the
same cause of action. By way of exception, the class action judgment has a
binding efect "ultra partes", which precludes absent parties from asserting
the same cause of action in a subsequent proceeding. Other jurisdictions
call this efect res judicata "erga omnes", which is the essence of the class
action and without which the class action becomes an ordinary joinder
device.
Res judicata erga omnes in class action judgments departs from classic res
judicata in two ways. First, it substitutes the element of "identity of parties"
with the "class" construct. Second, it changes the concept of "cause of
action" in the traditional formula for claim preclusion. This is the more
problematic aspect as it demands clarifcation of the notions of identical
causes of action, "singular" and "multiple" causes of action, "common" and
"individual" causes of action, similar transactions or events, common or
general interest, and all other issues in defning baseline criteria to
establish a "class".
Do these departures transform the meaning of "res judicata" in class action
judgments? There are two hypotheses: either res judicata erga omnes is
compatible with classic res judicata, or it is a mode of claim preclusion sui
generis.
If they are compatible, the question "why do class suits bind absent
parties?" must be analyzed in two tiers: (1) How does res judicata erga
omnes reconcile with the principle of "res inter alios acts vel indicate aliis
non nocet ned proudest"? And, (2) can there be identity of cause of action
between the class action and a subsequent suit?
If they are incompatible, how is the preclusive efect of class actions on
absent parties fair?
---
Courts take it as a given that the rule of res judicata explains the binding
efect of a class action judgment.
---
(1) if the "erga omnes" efect of class action judgment is compatible with
classic "res judicata",
Hence, the original question "why do class suits bind absent parties?"
produces two theories:
has to two tiers:
(1) How does the "erga omnes" efect of a class action judgment reconcile
with the principle of "res inter alios acts vel indicate aliis non nocet ned
proudest"?
(2) What is the meaning of "identity of cause of action" in class action
judgments?
If they are compatible, how does the binding efect "ultra partes" of a class
action judgment reconcile with the principle of "res inter alios acts vel
indicate aliis non nocet ned proudest"?
If they are incompatible, can "res judicata erga omnes" nevertheless be
justifed by the same philosophy of fairness that animates the classic
doctrine of res judicata?
---
First, and the more obvious departure, is that it modifes the concept of of
"parties". Second, which is the more problematic, is that it transforms the
meaning of "cause of action". The more obvious departure is that the notion
of "class" substitutes the element of identity of parties. However, this only
tells us "who" are bound by the class action judgment. It does not tell us
why a class action judgment has the efect of claim preclusion. The answer
to this lies in completing the formula for "res judicata", which is by defning
"identity of cause of action" as a requirement for claim preclusion in class
actions.
---
WHY DO CLASS SUITS BIND ABSENT PARTIES?
(1) How does the binding efect "erga omnes" of a class action judgment
reconcile with the principle of "res inter alios acts vel indicate aliis non nocet
ned proudest"?
(a) Is there a class action judgment that has no "erga omnes" efect?
(b) Can a class action judgment have res judicata efect without
actual res judicata?
(2) What is the meaning of "identity of cause of action" in the concept of
"res judicata" in class actions?