Pending in the district court is an antitrust class action on behalf of pharmacies all over the United States agаinst twenty-four manufacturers, and seven wholesalers, of pharmaceuticals. The class was certified undеr Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). A number of class members opted out of the class action and brought their own suits against the manufacturers, but did not name the wholesalers as defendants. The district judge granted summary judgment for the wholesaler defendants in the class action and entered a final, appealable judgment in their favor under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), precipitating appeals by some of the opt-out plaintiffs and also by some of the class members who are not named plaintiffs in the class action. The wholesalers ask us to dismiss these appeals on the ground that the appellants, not being parties to the class action, have no right to appeal from a judgmеnt entered in it.
We begin with the opt-outs. Having opted out of the class action, they were no longer members of the class and so in no sense were parties. A nonparty has no right to appeal.
Marino v. Ortiz,
Now it is true that the opt-outs were permitted to participate in the pretrial proceedings in the сlass action by attending depositions, responding to requests for discovery, and answering the wholesalers’ mоtion for summary judgment. But their participation was authorized in a pretrial order that expressly denied that thеse participants were to be deemed parties; the purpose of allowing their particiрation was merely to facilitate the coordination of the opt-outs’ parallel suits with the class action. (We have not been informed why the Multidistrict Litigation Panel did not consolidate the pretrial proсeedings in the parallel suits with the pretrial proceedings in the class action.) The opt-outs argue thаt the judgment in favor of the wholesalers will affect them even though they have not sued the wholesalers. It will not have a preclusive effect on them, because they are neither parties, nor in privity with any parties, to the class action. Maybe it will affect their interests enough in some other way to permit them to intervеne in the class action — we cannot tell on the record before us. Although it would be peculiar for аn opt-out to seek to opt back in, this is occasionally sought and allowed. E.g., In re Electric Weld Steel Tubing Antitrust Litigation, 1982-2 Trade Cases (CCH) para. 64872 (E.D.Pa.1982); 3 Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 16.18, p. 16-99 (3d ed.1992).
But a request for intervention must be addressed to the district court. Although some cases have allowed nonparties to appeal without first intervening in the district court, this bypass is no longer permissible after
Marino.
See also
SEC v. Wozniak,
So much for the opt-outs; as for the class members (some 90 in number) who want to appeal even though they are not named plaintiffs, to allow them to appeal would be an even worse affront to intelligent judicial administration because it wоuld fragment the control of the class action. Such economies of litigation as the class action confers are due in large part to its enabling a large number of individual claims to be treated, at leаst for liability purposes, as if they were a single claim. If the certified class representative does nоt adequately represent the interests of some of the class members, those class members can opt out of the class action, can seek the creation of a separately
*458
represented subclass, can ask for the replacement of the class representative, or can intervene of right and become named plaintiffs themselves, or even class representatives, represented by their own lawyer. Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2) (opting out); Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(4) (subdivision of class into subclasses);
In re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation,
The motion to dismiss the appeals is granted, and the appeals are
Dismissed.