Class Actions Brief Blog

Under the American Pipe doctrine, the commencement of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for absent class members. American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554 (1974). The intent of this rule is to protect the interests of class members and preserve the efficiencies of class litigation. Without tolling, absent class members would need to intervene or file individual claims to preserve their rights if the court denies class certification. See Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350 (1983). We have discussed American Pipe tolling on the blog before ...

After a lively oral argument interrupted eight times by laughter, a unanimous Supreme Court reached a serious holding in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019): that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f)’s 14-day period for requesting permission to appeal class certification orders cannot be equitably tolled.

The class-action plaintiff in Lambert sued for an alleged violation of the California consumer protection law. Although the district court originally allowed the plaintiff to proceed on behalf of a class, the court later ordered the class decertified. The plaintiff ...

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

Late last year, we explained the tricky statute of limitations issues that can arise regarding “cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.” The issue arose in some of the many Pella window cases pending before Judge Norton in the District of South Carolina. Those cases have now raised several more interesting timeliness issues—when plaintiffs can consolidate pending cases to avoid dismissal on timeliness grounds, and when a failure to move for certification waives class claims.

In October of last year, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred ...

Just before the holidays, Judge Norton considered the thorny issue of “cross-jurisdictional class action tolling” in a multidistrict litigation case involving allegedly defective windows. See Schwartz v. Pella Corp., No. 2:14-mn-00001, 2:14-cv-00556 (D.S.C. Dec. 18, 2014). As the name suggests, cross-jurisdictional class action tolling is an equitable doctrine that tolls the statute of limitations during the pendency of a class action in a different court. The principle of class action tolling was introduced forty years ago in American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 ...