Cite as: 527 U. S. 815 (1999)
Breyer, J., dissenting
to that question, and so I limit the focus of my dissent to the Rule 23(b)(1)(B) issues as well.
II
The District Court certified a class consisting primarily of individuals (and their families) who had been exposed to Fibreboard's asbestos but who had not yet made claims. See ante, at 825-827, and n. 5. It did so under the authority of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B), which, by analogy to pre-Rules "limited fund" cases, permits certification of a non-opt-out class where
"the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of . . . adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests."
The majority thinks this class could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). I, on the contrary, think it could.
The case falls within the Rule's language as long as there was a significant "risk" that the total assets available to satisfy the claims of the class members would fall well below the likely total value of those claims, for in such circumstances the money would go to those claimants who brought their actions first, thereby " 'substantially impair[ing]' " the " 'ability' " of later claimants " 'to protect their interests.' " And the District Court found there was indeed such a " 'risk.' " 162 F. R. D., at 526.
Conceptually speaking, that "risk" was no different from the risk inherent in a classic pre-Rules "limited fund" case. Suppose a broker agrees to invest the funds of 10 individuals who each give the broker $100. The broker misuses the money, and the customers sue. (1) Suppose their claims total $1,000, but the broker's total assets amount to $100.
871
Page: Index Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007