Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Next Stop the Supreme Court?: Circuit Court Extends American Pipe Tolling to Preserve Class Claims

June 14, 2017 by Carlton Fields

The Ninth Circuit recently held that plaintiffs whose claims were tolled during the pendency of two class actions were not time-barred from bringing a third related putative class action when the first two classes were not certified. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, a Chinese holding company, along with its directors and managers, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misstating revenue and income related to its subsidiaries’ purported fertilizer business. The named plaintiffs had previously been unnamed putative class members in two lawsuits against the same defendants and arising from the same facts in which certification was denied. Defendants in the third action moved to dismiss, arguing that the class action was time-barred under the Exchange Act’s two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs claimed, however, that the two earlier lawsuits had tolled the limitations period. The district court disagreed, finding that, while the earlier action tolled the statute for class members’ individual claims, it did not toll the time for a subsequent class action; otherwise, tolling could continue indefinitely while plaintiffs made repeated attempts to certify a class. The district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and subsequently denied reconsideration.

On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit reversed. Like the district court, it discussed the Supreme Court’s decisions in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983), in which the Court initially determined that class members’ individual claims are tolled during the pendency of a putative class action, which enables them to intervene in or bring individual actions if the class is not certified. These decisions did not, however, address whether such individuals could bring an entirely new class action.

In analyzing that question, the Ninth Circuit determined that successive class actions are an issue of preclusion rather than tolling. It found support for this conclusion in three additional Supreme Court decisions. First, the court relied on its reading of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), that only Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is used to determine whether a claim is eligible for class certification, not any other laws (such as statutes of limitations). Next, in Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011), the Supreme Court refused to allow a federal court that denied class certification to enjoin a parallel putative class action in state court involving different named plaintiffs. There, preclusion did not bar the state suit, as the plaintiffs had only been unnamed plaintiffs in the federal action and the class had not been certified. Finally, in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016), the Supreme Court emphasized that the class action device does not abridge parties’ substantive rights in holding that statistical sampling evidence could be used to show class-wide liability. The Ninth Circuit interpreted these decisions as support for its determination that the statute of limitations would not bar a class action where the plaintiffs’ individual claims were not time-barred.

The court put its decision in a broader context, stating this outcome would advance the policy objectives of tolling and promote judicial economy without creating unfair surprise for defendants. It further noted that preclusion, comity, and the expense of filing multiple, unsustainable class actions would serve to dissuade the abusive filing of successive actions, but warned that these principles, and Rule 23 itself, were still obstacles to class certification in the case.

Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., No. 15-55432, 2017 WL 2261024 (9th Cir. May 24, 2017).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Consolidated Cholesterol Drug Cases Lack Critical Mass for CAFA Jurisdiction

Next Article »

Game Over – SCOTUS Holds a Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Is Not a Viable Means to Appeal a Denial of Class Certification
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.