Class Actions Brief Blog

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 U.S. 538 (1974), when the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of a putative federal class action. Generally, therefore, a putative class member can sit on the sidelines while a federal class action rocks along without the limitations period running. There is one (big) catch, however: American Pipe tolling only applies to subsequently filed federal question actions, not class actions based on state law. See Wade v. Danek Med., Inc., 182 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 1999). And, where state law is silent regarding cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, the Fourth Circuit has strongly suggested that federal courts should not infer its availability. Id. at 287-88. Unfortunately for Schwartz, her leaky-window implied breach of warranty claims were based on Minnesota law and her class action tolling contention hinged on a case filed in Illinois federal court. Thus, because Minnesota has never recognized cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, Judge Norton “decline[d] to establish such a rule in the first instance,” and dismissed Schwartz’s implied warranty claims as untimely.