OVERLAPPING CLASS-ACTIONS

Large-scale class actions pose unique problems that challenge the trad itional norm of allowing parallel litigation to continue in the courts of different jurisdictions. Professor Miller argues that the existing system represents a series of compromises between the need for both t he efficient and orderly disposition of disputes and a residual concer n for the principle of separate sovereignty. The efficiency concern in the large-scale litigation setting moves to the forefront because of the massive difficulties faced by the courts in disposing of such liti gation in an expeditious and accurate manner. The interest in respecti ng separate sovereignty, however, is of diminished importance because of the inherently interstate nature of this type of litigation. To acc ommodate this weighing of public policies, a number of innovations hav e been adopted, and still others proposed, which move toward an exclus ive forum model-the model in which litigation arising out of a single complex of operative fact should proceed in one and only one forum. Pr ofessor Miller recommends additional reforms that would move the condu ct of class action litigation in the direction of the exclusive forum model. Specifically, he recommends that (1) the removal power should b e broadly construed to authorize federal courts to take overlapping st ate class action cases when the federal court litigation offers the op portunity for the complete and adequate resolution of the claims asser ted in state court; (2) federal courts with jurisdiction over a class action should interpret the Anti-Injunction Act to authorize antisult injunctions against overlapping state class actions, in situations whe re the state-court proceeding threatens to obviate the federal-court l itigation by means of a comprehensive settlement that extinguishes the federal law claims, at least when the federal court concludes that th ere is a substantial probability that the federal litigation will resu lt in a fair and adequate settlement or judgement that affords relief to the members of the plaintiff class; and (3) federal courts should c ontinue to experiment with the auction approach to class action litiga tion, and in furtherance of this end, should view the possibility of a litigation auction as an additional consideration favoring the centra lization of overlapping class cases in a single federal forum.