Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Supreme Court Asked to Resolve Circuit Split Over Applicability of American Pipe Tolling to Successive Class Actions

September 27, 2017 by Carlton Fields

We previously blogged on whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in American Pipe applies to toll the statute of limitations for successive putative class actions. In Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that American Pipe tolled the limitations period for putative class actions by absent class members — thus theoretically permitting endless relitigation of certification denials. As we predicted, a defendant in Resh has filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court to resolve the question of: “Whether the American Pipe rule tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.” The petition asks the Court to resolve the split between the First, Second, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits, which find American Pipe inapplicable to successive class actions, and the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. Absent Supreme Court review, we predict that district courts in the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits will be forums of choice for copycat class plaintiffs seeking another bite at the certification apple.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Ninth Circuit Tolls Rule 23(f) Deadline, Revives Aphrodisiac Class Action

Next Article »

The Continuing Saga of Standing in Data Breach Class Actions: The 8th Circuit Weighs In
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Related Articles

  1. GCs facing more bet-the-company and higher exposure class actions
  2. 2016 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey Reveals Important Trends in Class Action Management
  3. Basic Survives, But Defendants Must Have Opportunity To Show Lack Of Price Impact To Rebut “Fraud-On-The-Market” Presumption Of Reliance Prior To Class Certification

Get Weekly Updates!

2019 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

  • Class Action Survey: What Percentage of Class Action Lawsuits Are Settled? When do Most Settlements Occur?
  • Class Action Survey: True or False? The Amount of Time In-House Attorneys Spent Managing Class Actions Has Increased.
  • No Speaking? No Standing!

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
© 2014–2019 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.