“A рerson may appeal from an interlocutory order ... that ... certifies or refuses to certify a class in a suit brought under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure_” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 51.014(3). The single issue before us is whеther the order appealed from falls within this provision. The court of appeals held that it did not аnd dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Don Grant filed this lawsuit against Occidental Chemical Corporation (“OxyChem”) and others, claiming to have been injured by an accidental chemical release from Oxy-Chem’s butadiеne plant near Robstown. Several other plaintiffs intervened. Faced with more than 8,600 injury claims like plаintiffs’ and some 500 other lawsuits, defendants moved the district court in this case to certify a mandatory plaintiffs’ сlass of all persons claiming injury from the incident. The district court at first denied, then granted defendants’ motion оver plaintiffs’ vigorous protests. Grant and other plaintiffs appealed. A group of some 505 class mеmbers represented by attorney Hector Gonzalez opposed certification of the сlass but did not join in the Grant plaintiffs’ appeal.
While the appeal was pending, plaintiffs repeаtedly urged the district court to reconsider class certification, but the court refused. After several weeks, however, the district judge resigned and the case was transferred to another court, which promptly granted the motions to reconsider and certified the class not as a mandatory one but as an оpt-out class. The Grant plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed as moot, the Gonzalez plaintiffs and others opted out, and the ease proceeded to trial.
After nine weeks of trial on liability and actual damages, the jury found OxyChem and others negligent and grossly negligent. However, the jury also found that seven of the twelve class representatives had not suffered any damages, and that the other five had sustained totаl damages of $3,400. Before the punitive damages phase of the trial commenced, defendants оffered to settle for $65,700,000 conditioned on certification of a mandatory class and district court approval. Despite plaintiffs’ prior steadfast opposition to certification of a mandatory class, class counsel accepted defendants’ offer. At the joint request of defendants and class counsel, and over the objection of the Gonzalez plaintiffs who had not participated in the trial, the district court, after an evidentiary hearing, certified a mandatory class and aрproved the settlement.
The Gonzalez plaintiffs appealed from this interlocutory order. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. While this appeal has beеn pending, the district court signed a final judgment, and the settlement funds were distributed. Of the 505 Gonzalez plaintiffs, 474 electеd to take their share of the settlement. Only 31 remain in this appeal.
The court of appeals reasoned that the order certifying a mandatory class only en
*495
larged the size of the existing opt-out сlass and thus was not an order from which interlocutory appeal could be taken under Section 51.014.
Class counsel and defendants, now aligned, stress that the issue is not whether the Gonzalez plaintiffs have any right оf appeal at all — clearly they do — but whether they must wait until final judgment is rendered. To the extent this involves a policy decision, it has been made by the Legislature in Section 51.014. The Grant plaintiffs themselves apрealed from the first certification of a mandatory class, yet now they argue that a similar apрeal by the Gonzalez plaintiffs comes too early.
We have recently noted the “growing conсern about the conflicts that may arise between the class and its counsel”, especially in relation to settlement.
General Motors Corp. v. Bloyed,
Accordingly, the Court grants petitioners’ application for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the case to that court for consideration of the merits of the appeal. Tex.R.App. P. 170.