Zuzanna Juris v. Inamed Corporation
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13841
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Inamed’s 1999 settlement created a mandatory, limited fund to resolve tens of thousands of breast-implant claims.
- In 2006 Juris sued Allergan/Inamed-related parties in California, arguing res judicata did not bar her claims for due process reasons.
- The Alabama district court held the class settlement precluded Juris from prosecuting the California case; Juris appealed.
- Judge Pointer certified the settlement as a non-opt-out, limited fund under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) and approved a $31.5 million fund funded by senior creditors, with distribution to be decided later.
- Notice efforts included mailed notices to 250,000 registrants and 28,000 counsel plus widely published notices; a plan for pro rata distribution of the fund was approved.
- After certification, the fund was distributed pro rata in 1999 (~$725 per claimant); subsequent events showed Inamed’s finances improved, but Juris pursued collateral challenges in district court decades later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral attack viability on res judicata | Juris argues for collateral attack due process-based nullity. | Allergan maintains res judicata bars such collateral challenges. | Collateral attack barred; res judicata applicable. |
| Forum for collateral challenge | California forum appropriate under due process concerns. | Alabama district court proper due to consent and fund presence. | Alabama district court proper forum; Juris consented to fill merits review there. |
| Notice and due process for limited fund certification | Adequate notice lacking for absent future-injury claimants. | Notice plan satisfied due process under Temple and Battle standards. | Notice adequate; due process satisfied. |
| Adequacy of representation | Hornsby conflicted representing both current and future claimants. | Counsel represented the functional equivalents of subclasses; no inadequate representation. | Adequate representation; no due process violation. |
| Opt-out rights and personal jurisdiction | Absent jurisdiction and opt-out rights violated due process under Shutts. | Limited fund presence gave jurisdiction; opt-out not required. | Opt-out not required; fund-based jurisdiction satisfied; due process not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (U.S. 1999) (limited fund certification scrutiny and implications for adequacy of fund)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (S. Ct. 1997) (adequacy of representation in global settlements; need for structural protections)
- Temple v. Bell, 851 F.2d 1269 (11th Cir. 1988) (due process and notice in mandatory class actions)
- Battle v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 1279 (11th Cir. 1992) (notice sufficiency and adequacy of representation in a complex class action)
- In re Real Estate Title & Settlement Services Antitrust Litigation, 869 F.2d 760 (3d Cir. 1989) (forum for collateral review and absence of opt-out considerations in limited fund context)
- Gonzales v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1973) (adequate representation and collateral attack framework)
- In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litig., 982 F.2d 721 (2d Cir. 1992) (limited fund theory and in rem/quasi-in Rem jurisdiction considerations)