## Facts

- Texas officials suspended uninsured motorists’ licenses and vehicle registrations under the Texas Safety Responsibility Act for failure to post security after an accident, without a pre-suspension hearing on liability or fault.
- An earlier Rule 23(b)(2) class action challenged the Act; after remand in light of *Bell v. Burson*, the court declared the Act unconstitutional.
- The remedial order in the earlier class case granted retroactive relief only to the named plaintiff and granted only prospective relief to the rest of the class.
- The named plaintiff in the earlier class case did not appeal the limitation that denied retroactive relief to absent class members.
- Pedro Gonzales, an absent member of the earlier class, later filed a new class action against the same state officials seeking broader relief, including retroactive relief for class members.
- The district court dismissed Gonzales’s suit on res judicata grounds based on the earlier class judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether res judicata bars an absent class member from relitigating issues decided in a prior Rule 23(b)(2) class action when the prior representative allegedly provided inadequate representation by failing to appeal an adverse limitation on class relief.
2. Whether an absent class member may collaterally attack the preclusive effect of a prior class judgment on the ground of inadequate representation.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- A class judgment binds absent class members only if they were adequately represented in the prior action.
- The court found the earlier class representation inadequate because the representative failed to appeal a remedial limitation that significantly disadvantaged absent class members despite a strong legal basis for broader relief after *Bell v. Burson*.
- Because representation was inadequate, the earlier class judgment had no res judicata effect against Gonzales and the class he sought to represent.

## Legal Principles

- Due process limits the preclusive effect of class judgments; res judicata and due process intersect when absent class members are bound.
- Adequate representation is a constitutional prerequisite to binding absent class members to a Rule 23(b)(2) class judgment.
- Adequacy depends on whether the representative and counsel vigorously pursued the class’s interests, including appellate steps when needed to protect classwide relief.
- An absent class member may collaterally challenge a prior class judgment’s preclusive effect by showing inadequate representation in the earlier action.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that a prior Rule 23(b)(2) class judgment could not preclude a later suit by an absent class member where the earlier representative’s failure to appeal a limitation on class relief rendered the representation constitutionally inadequate, defeating res judicata.


Gonzales v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1973)