multifactor analysis

Carol Sosna married Michael Sosna on September 5, 1964, in Michigan. They lived together in New York between October 1967 and August 1971, after which they separated but continued to reside there. In August 1972 Sosna moved to Iowa with her three children. The following month she petitioned the District Court of Jackson County, Iowa, for dissolution of her marriage. Michael Sosna was personally served when he visited Iowa and made a special appearance to contest jurisdiction. The Iowa court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction under Iowa Code § 598.6 because Sosna had not resided in the state for one year preceding the filing. Instead of appealing, Sosna filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on constitutional grounds. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and 2284. While the federal action was pending, the Iowa Supreme Court decided In re Marriage of Williams, 217 N.W.2d 202 (1974), and upheld the statute's constitutionality. The three-judge court upheld the residency requirement. This Court noted probable jurisdiction. During the appeal Sosna obtained a divorce in New York, though custody and support issues remained unresolved from the Iowa proceeding. She returned to Iowa to prosecute the appeal. Sosna sought class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to represent Iowa residents who had lived in the state less than one year and wished to initiate divorce actions but were barred by the residency requirement. The parties stipulated that numerous people were similarly situated, joinder was impracticable, her claims were representative, and she would adequately protect class interests. The district court approved the stipulation in a pretrial order.

Brent Taylor and Greg Herrick were friends who shared an interest in restoring antique aircraft, including the F-45 model manufactured in the 1930s. In 1997, Herrick submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Aviation Administration seeking technical documents from the F-45 certification process held in agency records. The FAA denied the request under the trade secrets exemption after consulting with Fairchild Corporation, the corporate successor to the original manufacturer, which objected to disclosure. Herrick then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. The Wyoming District Court granted summary judgment to the FAA, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision on July 24, 2002, upholding the exemption despite a 1955 letter from the manufacturer authorizing public use of the documents. Less than a month later, on August 22, 2002, Taylor submitted an identical FOIA request to the FAA for the same F-45 documents. When the agency did not respond, Taylor filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the 1955 letter had removed trade secret protection and raising additional issues about whether protection could be restored or recaptured. After Fairchild intervened as a defendant, the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Taylor's suit, concluding that he was virtually represented in Herrick's prior action. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal, applying its own five-factor test for virtual representation that included identity of interests, adequate representation, and a close relationship. The record showed that Taylor served as president of the Antique Aircraft Association to which Herrick belonged, that Herrick had asked Taylor to assist with restoring his F-45 without a formal contract, that Taylor later retained the same attorney who represented Herrick, and that Herrick had provided Taylor with documents obtained during discovery in the Wyoming litigation. Taylor had not participated directly in Herrick's suit, received no notice of it, and exercised no control over its conduct. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the virtual representation doctrine applied by the lower courts.