## Facts

- Consumers alleged several title insurers used state-licensed rating bureaus to file collective rates for title search and examination services, resulting in unlawful price-fixing under federal antitrust law.
- Related class actions were consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding, where a court certified a mandatory class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2).
- The MDL court approved a settlement providing injunctive relief and requiring class members to release monetary damages claims based on the same alleged conduct; class members were not permitted to opt out.
- After the MDL judgment became final, class members Brown and Dziewit filed a new federal action seeking treble damages, fees, and injunctive relief based on the same alleged price-fixing.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the insurers on res judicata grounds, holding the MDL judgment barred all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the MDL settlement judgment precluded the later suit’s request for injunctive relief under res judicata.
2. Whether due process permits a mandatory Rule 23(b)(1)/(b)(2) class judgment, with no opt-out right, to preclude absent class members’ later claims for monetary damages.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment insofar as it barred the plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claims.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment insofar as it barred the plaintiffs’ monetary damages claims.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on damages.

## Legal Principles

- A final federal class action judgment can have claim-preclusive effect against class members as to claims actually resolved within the proper scope of the class proceeding.
- Res judicata may bar subsequent injunctive claims by members of a mandatory Rule 23(b)(1)/(b)(2) class when the prior judgment finally resolved equitable relief arising from the same nucleus of operative facts.
- Minimal due process is not satisfied where a mandatory Rule 23(b)(1)/(b)(2) class action, lacking an opt-out mechanism, is used to extinguish absent class members’ individual claims for monetary damages; such a judgment cannot be enforced to preclude later damages claims.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the prior mandatory class settlement validly precluded renewed efforts to obtain injunctive relief, but due process prevented using that non-opt-out judgment to bar absent class members’ subsequent claims for monetary damages based on the same alleged antitrust conduct.


Brown v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1992)