For
the unnamed class member whose claim is too small to warrant opt out, there should be no practical effect.
The dissent, written by Justice Ginsburg (and joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan), viewed the decision as creating a high risk that
unnamed class members will «forfeit their constitutionally shielded right to opt out of the class and thereby control the prosecution of their own claims for damages.»
But
unnamed class members with sizable claims subject to statutes of repose should be particularly attentive to the calendar before deciding to opt out and file their own lawsuits.
Not exact matches
The Eighth Circuit reasoned that Smith sought certification «of the same
class» in a suit alleging «the same legal theories» as in the McCollins case, and held that the injunction was proper because Smith was an
unnamed member of the McCollins
class, and because their «interests were aligned.»
March 12, 2018)(which we discussed for other reasons, here), where the defendant had not initially raised personal jurisdiction against «
unnamed, nonresident
class members,» either in «their answer» or while «litigating this case for many years.»