## Facts

- Equifax Check Services, Inc. provided check-verification services and pursued payment on dishonored checks and related fees through collection letters.
- Beverly Blair and Letressa Wilbon filed an FDCPA class action on behalf of consumers who received Equifax’s collection letters, seeking statutory damages for alleged deficiencies in the letters’ required disclosures.
- A separate, larger class action (Crawford) was certified the same day; its class definition encompassed the Blair class members.
- Equifax reached a proposed settlement in Crawford that would bind class members without notice or an opt-out opportunity and would bar further class litigation on the settled claims.
- Relying on the proposed Crawford settlement, Equifax moved to decertify the Blair class on the theory that the settlement would preclude the Blair litigation; the district court denied the motion.
- Equifax petitioned for interlocutory review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) of the order refusing to decertify the Blair class.

## Issues

1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), when should a court of appeals permit an interlocutory appeal from an order granting, denying, or maintaining class certification?
2. Whether a proposed, not-yet-final settlement in an overlapping class action requires decertification or dismissal of a certified class action on claim-preclusion grounds.

## Decision

- The court of appeals denied permission to appeal under Rule 23(f).
- The court held that Rule 23(f) confers broad, certiorari-like discretion to accept or reject interlocutory review of class certification decisions, without rigid criteria.
- The court concluded that the proposed settlement in the overlapping action did not require decertification because claim preclusion depends on a final judgment, which did not yet exist in the overlapping case.
- The district court’s refusal to decertify the Blair class remained in effect, and the Blair action could proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(f) provides discretionary interlocutory review; the court of appeals may grant or deny review based on any consideration it finds persuasive.
- Attempts to impose a fixed, bright-line set of factors for Rule 23(f) acceptance are disfavored; the inquiry is context-specific.
- Claim preclusion generally requires a final judgment on the merits; a proposed or pending settlement in another action does not bar overlapping litigation until reduced to a final, binding judgment.
- Parallel class proceedings are not terminated on preclusion grounds unless and until one action reaches final judgment binding the overlapping class members.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit declined interlocutory review and held that an overlapping class action’s proposed settlement, without a final judgment, does not trigger claim preclusion or compel decertification of another certified class, while emphasizing the appellate court’s broad discretion under Rule 23(f).


Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999)