## Facts

- Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products, faced more than 130,000 asbestos personal-injury and wrongful-death suits nationwide, with additional claims expected to arise in the future.
- The litigation proceeded within coordinated federal asbestos proceedings in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.
- Special Masters reported that Eagle-Picher’s assets and insurance for bodily-injury claims were limited, creating a risk that early judgments would exhaust resources needed to pay later and future claimants.
- Eagle-Picher and representatives for present and future claimants negotiated a proposed nationwide settlement framework designed to create a fund to pay all present and future asbestos claims.
- Eagle-Picher moved to certify a mandatory, non-opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) on a “limited fund” theory and sought a stay of all other asbestos actions against it.
- After an order to show cause and hearings, an involuntary bankruptcy petition was briefly filed against Eagle-Picher and dismissed with prejudice at the petitioners’ request.
- The court issued a memorandum conditionally certifying the class and enjoining most parallel proceedings while settlement approval steps continued.

## Issues

1. Whether a nationwide, mandatory Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class could be conditionally certified on the ground that Eagle-Picher’s assets and insurance constituted a limited fund threatened by piecemeal litigation.
2. Whether the court could enjoin pending and future state and federal asbestos actions against Eagle-Picher under the Anti-Injunction Act and the All Writs Act to protect the class proceeding and settlement process.
3. Whether binding absent and future claimants through a mandatory class was consistent with Rule 23(a) prerequisites and due process.

## Decision

- The court conditionally certified a mandatory nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) comprising all present and future asbestos claimants against Eagle-Picher.
- The court found a substantial risk that separate suits would impair other claimants’ ability to recover by depleting a limited pool of assets and insurance.
- The court issued an injunction staying virtually all pending and future asbestos-related actions against Eagle-Picher in other courts, subject to specified exceptions.
- The court relied on the Anti-Injunction Act’s “necessary in aid of jurisdiction” exception and the All Writs Act to preserve its control over the limited-fund proceeding and the proposed settlement.

## Legal Principles

- A mandatory class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) when separate adjudications would, as a practical matter, impair nonparties’ interests because claims compete for a limited pool of assets needed to satisfy present and future liabilities.
- In a limited-fund setting, centralization through a single class proceeding may be used to support equitable, proportional treatment of competing claimants.
- A federal court may enjoin state-court proceedings when the injunction is necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, including when the court is effectively supervising allocation of a finite asset pool akin to quasi in rem control.
- Under the All Writs Act, a court may issue orders needed to protect its jurisdiction and prevent other proceedings from frustrating administration of an aggregate settlement process.

## Conclusion

The court treated Eagle-Picher’s constrained assets and insurance as a limited fund justifying conditional certification of a mandatory nationwide Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class and a broad injunction staying parallel asbestos litigation to protect the court’s jurisdiction and preserve an orderly, equitable settlement process for present and future claimants.


In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig. (In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc.), 134 F.R.D. 32 (E.D.N.Y. 1990)