FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS IN CLASS-ACTIONS - A COMMENT ON EPSTEIN V. MCA,INC

In this Response, Professor Alien contends that in arguing that plaint iffs in state court proceedings are unable to fairly and effectively b argain for the release of exclusively federal claims, the court in Mat sushita II reached a judgment that is inconsistent with established co ncepts of finality of judgments, with design of an effective class act ion mechanism, and with the policies and precedents of full faith and credit. Although the centrality of the federalism idea has waxed and w aned, the Supreme Court has generally encouraged respect by the lower federal courts of the processes and judgments of state courts. The exi sting system of decentralized state and federal courts allowed for the development of the Delaware Court of Chancery as a de facto specializ ed court of fiduciary and business law, which has been a positive forc e in the economy. The Matsushita II court, by contrast, does not accor d respect to state court determinations of adequacy under Rule 23 and thus potentially reinvents the problem of inefficiency and second-gues sing that is solved by the rule of finality and recognition of judgmen ts. Commentators favoring Matsushita II's disregard for state court ju dgments erroneously believe that state court judges possess less integ rity than their federal counterparts. A litigant is entitled to only a conscientious judicial determination of the issues according to law i n a proceeding that meets constitutional minimums-a task that state co urts are ably equipped to handle and that federal coupe should not lig htly disturb.