In China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide an important and recurring class action issue that has divided the courts of appeals—does the tolling of the statute of limitations for class members’ claims permit the filing of a successive, otherwise time-barred, class action after the denial of class certification in a similar case?

In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, the Supreme Court held that the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for all members of the putative class. If class certification is denied, the tolling stops and the statute of limitations resumes running. The American Pipe tolling rule protects class members’ reliance on the class action mechanism and discourages the filing of duplicative lawsuits. Left undecided in American Pipe was the question of whether, after denial of class certification, an absent class member is allowed to bring an otherwise time-barred similar lawsuit only on an individual basis, or whether a successive class action may also be filed.

The majority of Courts of Appeals (First, Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and 11th Circuits) have held that American Pipe tolling only applies to allow subsequent individual actions. As Justice Alito explained in an opinion he wrote when he was on the Third Circuit, “[w]ithout this restriction on tolling, lawyers seeking to represent a plaintiff class could extend the statute of limitations almost indefinitely until they find a district court judge who is willing to certify the class.” Similarly, an 11th Circuit opinion emphasized that extending the tolling doctrine to permit successive class actions “would allow a purported class almost limitless bites at the apple as it continuously substitutes named plaintiffs and re-litigates the class certification issue.”

However, in the China Agritech case, the Ninth Circuit agreed with earlier decisions by the Sixth and Seventh Circuits that, under the American Pipe tolling doctrine, after class certification is denied, an absent class member may file an otherwise time-barred successive class action. The Ninth Circuit held that a successive securities class action filed after the denial of class certification in two prior identical class actions was timely under American Pipe, even though it would have been time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations but for tolling.

A decision in this case is expected before the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June 2018. Based on the composition of the Court and its decision earlier this year declining to extend American Pipe tolling to statutes of repose, it is reasonable to expect a reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and a limitation of American Pipe to preclude tolling for successive class actions.

Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group is nationally recognized for its guidance in structuring and documenting new consumer financial services products, its experience with the full range of federal and state consumer credit laws, and its skill in litigation defense and avoidance (including pioneering work in pre-dispute arbitration programs).


Copyright © 2017 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.