## Facts

- Thousands of personal-injury claims were filed alleging that the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device caused severe injuries, including infections, infertility, pregnancy complications, hysterectomies, and reported deaths.
- The device was developed and tested beginning in 1968; A.H. Robins acquired rights in 1970 and marketed it widely.
- Roughly 2.2 million devices were inserted in the United States between 1970 and 1974; Robins withdrew the product from the market in 1974.
- Federal cases were coordinated through multidistrict proceedings for consolidated discovery, after which many cases were remanded for trial in their original districts, including numerous actions in the Northern District of California.
- After an initial lengthy individual trial, the district court, facing a large docket, conditionally certified (1) a nationwide class seeking punitive damages and (2) a California-only class for liability against Robins.

## Issues

1. Whether a mandatory nationwide punitive-damages class was properly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B) based on the risk that separate punitive awards could impair other claimants’ ability to obtain punitive damages.
2. Whether a California-only liability class was properly conditionally certified under Rule 23(b)(3) given predominance and superiority requirements in complex personal-injury litigation.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that certification of the mandatory nationwide punitive-damages class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) was improper.
- The court reasoned that the record did not establish a genuine “limited fund” or show that separate actions would, with practical certainty, extinguish or materially impair other claimants’ punitive-damages rights.
- The court emphasized that independent tort claims—particularly punitive-damages claims—raise individualized issues and state-law variability that weigh against binding absent plaintiffs through a non-opt-out nationwide class.
- As to the California Rule 23(b)(3) liability class, the court emphasized the need for strict application of predominance and superiority in mass torts and expressed caution about broad tort class treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is narrowly suited to “limited fund” situations; a defendant’s general assets ordinarily do not qualify as a fund for mandatory class allocation.
- A mandatory damages class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) requires a showing that separate adjudications will “inescapably” alter or impair the substantive rights of absent claimants, not merely a speculative risk of depletion from large awards.
- Mass-tort manageability concerns and efficiency goals do not justify expanding Rule 23(b)(1)(B) beyond its traditional function.
- Punitive damages claims, even when tied to a common product, may involve individualized proof and jurisdiction-specific standards that create fairness and due process concerns in non-opt-out nationwide proceedings.
- Rule 23(b)(3) certification in complex personal-injury cases demands careful scrutiny of whether common issues genuinely predominate and whether a class action is superior to other methods.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit limited the use of Rule 23(b)(1)(B) in mass-tort litigation by rejecting a mandatory nationwide punitive-damages class absent proof of a true limited fund and an inevitable impairment of other claimants’ rights, while cautioning that Rule 23(b)(3) requirements must be rigorously enforced in complex product-liability cases.


In re N. Dist. of Cal. \"Dalkon Shield\" IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., 693 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1982)