OPINION *

Sixty-three heavy-duty truck dealers with a Heavy Truck Sales and Service Agreement (“SSA”) with Ford Motor Company appeal the denial of their motion ,for relief from judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. We will affirm. 1

*205 i.

Seventy-four dealers sued Ford in federal court for breach of the SSA. Because each dealer had effectively the same SSA agreement with Ford, the District Court certified the dealers as a class for determination of Ford’s liability for alleged breach of the SSA. The court held Ford breached the SSA and entered partial summary judgment for the seventy-four class member dealers on the issue of liability. Finding plaintiffs’ expert’s damages model produced intra-class conflicts, the court later decertified the class as to damages. The liability class, however, remained intact at all times. In a single bellwether trial, a jury then awarded eleven members of the" liability class — the three class representatives and eight other class members (the “bellwether” dealers) — $29 million in damages. Expecting the bellwether appeal would facilitate the resolution of the remaining sixty-thrée dealers’ claims, the court subsequently entered final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in favor of the eleven bellwether dealers. Ford appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and the jury’s damages award.

In a nonprecedential opinion in Bayshore Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 540 Fed.Appx. 113 (3d Cir. 2013) (Bayshore I), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held Ford had not breached the SSA; reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on the issue of liability; and remanded with instructions to enter judgment on liability in Ford’s favor. On remand, the District Court entered a judgment holding Ford not liable with regard to the entire class. The remaining sixty-three members of the liability class then moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. The court denied their motion on the ground that all class members were bound by Bayshore I’s resolution of liability in’ favor of Ford. On appeal, the sixty-three dealers contend they are not bound by Bayshore I because the court of appeals, lacked jurisdiction over them in that case.

II.

Contending that Rule 54(b) was the basis for appellate jurisdiction in Bayshore I and that a Rule 54(b) judgment was not and could not have been entered in favor of the sixty-three dealers given they had no jury award as to damages, the sixty-three dealers claim the court of appeals had no jurisdiction to bind them. 2 But it is undisputed that the eleven bellwether dealers, including the three named class representatives, were properly before the court of appeals in Bayshore I and that the court of appeals had jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of Ford’s liability. In the context of a class action, it is well settled that “a person not named as a party may be bound by a judgment on the merits of the action, if she was adequately represented by a party who actively participated in the litigation.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 884, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008); accord, e.g., Theisen v. City of Dearborn, 5 Mich.App. 607, 147 N.W.2d 720, 723-24 (1967). The sixty-three dealers were at all times members of the liability class, and they do not argue that the eleven bellwether dealers in Bayshore I did not actively participate in the litigation or adequately represent their interests. In fact, the same counsel who represented the eleven bellwether dealers represented the sixty-three dealers in this appeal. For the same reasons, had the court of appeals in Bayshore I áffirmed summary judgment in favor of the class, the sixty-three deal *206 ers would have prevailed on liability as class members.

Simply put, the sixty-three dealers ask us to determine that Ford breached the SSA even though Bayshore I resolved this exact same issue on the exact same facts against the three named class representatives and the eight other dealers. 3 But a core principle of issue preclusion is that “later courts should honor the first actual decision of a matter that has been actually litigated,” 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4416 (2d ed. Sept. 2014). The sixty-three dealers were adequately represented by fellow class members in Bay-shore I for our determination of the very same issue of liability, and we are bound by that decision.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.