collateral estoppel effects of their original choice of forum. See Hiatt, 75 F.3d at 1260 (noting that a plaintiff must accept the limitations of choosing a federal forum rather than a state forum) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 376, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978)). 9 . We recognize that denial of class certification alone does not constitute a final judgment on the merits sufficient to satisfy the res judicata principles underlying the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978); White v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 518 F.2d 213, 215-16 (8th Cir.1975); see also In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig., 134 F.3d 133, 146 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); J.R Clearwater Inc. v. Ash-land Chem. Co., 93
holding that cafa jurisdiction survived denial of class certification holding that in the rule 23 class action context named plaintiff may appeal a denial of class certification even if his or her individual claims had been satisfied through the entry of judgment holding that denial of class certification in stillpending federal action lacked sufficient finality to invoke relitigation exception to antiinjunction act holding that denial of class certification is not a judgment for purposes of the antiinjunction act while the underlying litigation remains pending holding that district court in making class certification decision should avoid focusing on merits of underlying class action