Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co.
F.3d 297 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res judicata does not bar claims from absent class members whose injuries manifest after the depletion of a class action settlement fund if the class structure created a conflict of interest that rendered their representation inadequate, thereby violating their due process rights.
Facts:
- Daniel Stephenson and Joe Isaacson were United States military veterans who served in Vietnam and were exposed to Agent Orange in the 1960s.
- In 1984, a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of veterans exposed to Agent Orange was settled, creating a $180 million fund.
- The certified class definition included all military personnel exposed between 1961 and 1972 and expressly stated it included "persons who have not yet manifested injury."
- The 1984 settlement agreement established a payment program to compensate class members for death or disability, but stipulated that payments would only be made for claims arising before December 31, 1994.
- The settlement fund was fully distributed and the payment program terminated as scheduled in 1994.
- Joe Isaacson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma in 1996.
- Daniel Stephenson was diagnosed with multiple myeloma in 1998.
- Both Stephenson's and Isaacson's injuries manifested after the settlement fund had expired.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1998, Joe Isaacson filed suit in New Jersey state court; defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- In 1999, Daniel Stephenson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred both actions to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where they were consolidated.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), arguing the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the 1984 Agent Orange class action settlement.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action.
- Stephenson and Isaacson, as plaintiffs-appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res judicata bar the claims of class members who were exposed to Agent Orange but whose injuries manifested after the depletion of a global settlement fund, where the original class included both currently injured and exposure-only plaintiffs without subclassing?
Opinions:
Majority - Parker, J.
No. The doctrine of res judicata does not preclude the plaintiffs' claims because they were not proper parties to the prior settlement due to inadequate representation. The court, applying the principles from the Supreme Court's decisions in Amchem and Ortiz, found a significant conflict of interest within the original class structure. The interests of currently injured class members (seeking large, immediate payments) were directly adverse to the interests of exposure-only plaintiffs like Stephenson and Isaacson, who required a fund preserved for future, latent injuries. Because the settlement fund was designed to expire in 1994, it failed to provide any recovery for class members whose injuries manifested after that date, demonstrating that their interests were not adequately protected. This lack of adequate representation constitutes a due process violation, meaning the prior judgment cannot bind these plaintiffs.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of Amchem and Ortiz to collateral attacks on long-settled class actions. It establishes that the finality of a global settlement in mass tort cases involving latent injuries is not absolute. The ruling empowers class members whose injuries manifest after a settlement fund expires to challenge the preclusive effect of the judgment by demonstrating their representation was inadequate due to structural conflicts. This precedent forces parties crafting such settlements to incorporate robust procedural safeguards, such as subclasses with separate representation for future claimants, to ensure the deal can withstand future due process challenges and be truly final.
Unlock the full brief for Stephenson v. Dow Chemical Co.