JDs Rising

By Francis Rojas

The doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel have been long ingrained in our society.  It is common to see in movies or television shows the idea that you cannot litigate the same case twice, seeking a double bite at the apple.  But the problem is then – how do you protect the authority of the other courts?  How do you make sure that judgments are enforced, but that you give the proper space to the state courts to assert their authority over their own jurisdiction regarding their own laws?  It comes then, to no surprise, that this same idea has been codified by Congress in the Anti Injunction At.

In order to protect the authority of federal and state district courts, the Anti Injunction Act, 28 USC 2283 generally prohibits a federal court from granting an injunction in state proceedings. The Anti Injunction Act provides three exceptions:

A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.

In applying any of these three exception, courts have taken special care to keep it “strict and narrow.” Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon, 486 U. S. 140, 148 (1988).  Recently, the Supreme Court, in Smith v. Bayer Corp, issued a decision concerning the third exception – the re-litigation of prior judgments.

In Smith, Bayer had put out an allegedly hazardous cholesterol drug, Baycol, which was eventually taken off pharmacy shelves. Two individuals (McCollins and Smith) sued Bayer, styling their complaint as a class action.  While Bayer was able to remove the McCollins’s case to federal court, it was unable to remove the Smith’s case because it lacked complete diversity.  In the suit brought by McCollins, the District Court denied class certification based in the premise that individual issues of fact predominated over common issues.  The District Court explained that each individual would have to prove that they were actually injured by the drug, so class action was improper.

With the state court action in Smith still pending, Bayer moved the District Court for an injunction, which would have prevented the state court from certifying a class.  Bayer argued that the state court suit in Smith involved essentially the same issues and the same people.  Both the District Court and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction.  However, the Supreme Court reversed.

In Smith, the Supreme Court held that in order for a district court’s determination of an issue to have preclusive effect, two conditions must be met.  First, the issue in federal court must be the same as the one presented in state court.  Second, Smith should have been a party to the federal suit, or fall within one of the discrete exceptions of the general rule against binding non-parties.  The Supreme Court held that neither of those two conditions were met.  Whereby, the Supreme Court held the state court had the authority and jurisdiction to hear the class action certification question – and that the federal court could not issue an injunction against the state court.