Class Actions Brief Blog

Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of June's filings:

Buffkin, et al. v. Hooks, et al., No. 1:18-cv-00502 (M.D.N.C. June 15, 2018) (purported class action brought by incarcerated persons alleging they have been diagnosed with hepatitis C and the N.C. Dept. of Public Safety and its officials have refused to treat them in violation of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Americans with Disabilities Act)

Hajjaj, et al. v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 3:18-cv-01637 ...

Updated 6-11-18: The Supreme Court’s decision earlier today in China Agritech confirms the validity of the observations in the original blog post below.  The Court held that American Pipe tolling does not apply to successive class actions.

In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown Cork & Seal v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the pendency of a class action will toll limitations periods for absent class members until class certification is denied.

Much recent attention has been focused on China Agritech Inc. v. Resh

Not every class action court filing in North and South Carolina becomes a full-length post on our blog. Here is a recap of May's filings:

Thibodeaux v. Credit Protection Ass’n, L.P., et al, No. 1:18-cv-00469 (M.D.N.C. May 31, 2018) and Thibodeaux v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC d/b/a ERC, et al., No. 1:18-cv-00470 (M.D.N.C. May 31, 2018) (purported class action alleging defendant debt collection agency sent misleading and deceptive communications to consumers in order to coerce payment with threat of credit report harm in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act)