Search form

Class Action Stacking Is Not Permitted, U.S. Supreme Court Rules

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, David R. Golder, Eric R. Magnus and Collin O’Connor Udell
  • June 11, 2018

Once class action certification has been denied, a putative class member may not start a new class action beyond the applicable statute of limitations, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-432 (June 11, 2018). Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

In 1974, the Court held in American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah that “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” 414 U.S. 538, 554. Noting that “[t]he watchwords of American Pipe are efficiency and economy of litigation,” the Court concluded in China Agritech that “American Pipe does not permit the maintenance of a follow-on class action past expiration of the statute of limitations.” The American Pipe equitable tolling rule does not apply to individual claimants banding together and filing a subsequent (“stacked”) class action.

Background

The case before the Court was the third of three identical putative class actions alleging the defendant, a fertilizer manufacturer, of violating securities fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The prior class actions failed, first, for lack of predominance and, second, because the class representatives were inadequate and atypical.

Absent members of the first two classes filed an essentially identical third class action. By that time, however, the applicable two-year statute of limitations had run.

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case. The Ninth Circuit reversed, allowing the case to proceed. The Ninth Circuit held that the American Pipe rule also applied to toll otherwise untimely follow-on (“stacked”) class actions.

Arguments

The defendant argued that American Pipe equitable tolling applies only to individual actions brought by previously absent class members, not to subsequent class actions. It objected to the Ninth Circuit’s rule because it extends equitable tolling despite lack of diligence on the part of the claimants and in a circumstance where the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (FRCP 23) policies underlying the American Pipe holding do not apply. Moreover, the defendant warned of a practical consequence of the Ninth Circuit’s rule: the “perpetual stacking of one class action after another.” This, it argued, would defeat the purpose of statutes of limitations ― to promote diligence and grant defendants repose.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant’s argument contravenes FRCP 23. They argued that FRCP 23 “creates a categorical rule” that applies automatically in all federal civil actions, Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 398 (2010), allowing a plaintiff who satisfies the Rule’s requirements to move for class certification. The plaintiffs also declared that the defendant’s argument contravenes the Rules Enabling Act. The Act provides that “use of the class device cannot ‘abridge . . . any substantive right.’” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1046 (2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b)). They also argued that the defendant’s fears of rampant “stacking” of class actions are without basis, noting that the Court had rejected that argument in Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011), because existing tools of judicial administration were sufficient to prevent abuse.

Time-Barred is Time-Barred

The Supreme Court was persuaded by the defendant’s reasoning that neither American Pipe nor other Supreme Court precedent “so much as hints that tolling extends to otherwise time-barred class claims.”

Justice Ginsburg, writing for the Court, noted that the interest of “economy of litigation” supports American Pipe tolling of the limitation period for individual claims, delaying those claims until after class certification is denied. In contrast, efficiency interests support early assertion of class claims, the Court said. FRCP 23(c)(1)(A) itself precludes untimely successive class actions by providing that class actions should be resolved early in the process. The plaintiffs’ position, the Court continued, “would allow the statute of limitations to be extended time and again; as each class is denied certification, a new named plaintiff could file a class complaint that resuscitates the litigation.” Because the plaintiffs had no substantive right to bring their claims outside the statute of limitations, the Court’s holding does not violate the Rules Enabling Act.

The Court explained, “What the Rules do not offer is a reason to permit plaintiffs to exhume failed class actions by filing new, untimely class actions.” Rather, it continued, “The watchwords of American Pipe are efficiency and economy of litigation, a principal purpose of Rule 23 as well.” The Court thus rejected the plaintiffs’ effort to extend the ambit of American Pipe to follow-on class actions beyond the expiration of the statute of limitations.

The Court reversed and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit.

***

Although this case took place in the context of a securities class action, its holding applies to class action litigation across practice areas, including in the labor and employment arena. The Court’s decision does not prevent a plaintiff from promptly joining an existing suit or filing an individual action once class action certification has been denied.

One consequence of the Court’s decision is that employees may decide to file multiple class actions earlier, resulting in consolidation of cases or parallel actions.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney if you have any questions about the Court’s decision or class actions in general.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 13, 2018

Class Action Trends Report Summer 2018

August 13, 2018

Our quarterly report discusses new developments in class action litigation and offers strategic guidance and tactical tips on how to defend such claims. This issue covers the following topics: Disparate impact — discrimination by the numbers Is the FCRA class the new FLSA wage and hour class? Other class action developments... Read More

June 29, 2018

Gig-Economy Delivery Couriers are Not Employees, New York Court Rules, Reverses Unemployment Board

June 29, 2018

A delivery courier fired by app-based food delivery service Postmates Inc. is an independent contractor, not an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, of the New York Supreme Court, has ruled. Matter of the Claim of Luis A. Vega, No. 525233 (June 21, 2018). The case is one... Read More

June 28, 2018

U.S. Supreme Court Roundup – 2017-2018

June 28, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court term that ended June 2018 included decisions on many topics important to workplace law, including class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements, public-sector “agency shop” arrangements, and the Fair Labor Standard Act’s “automobile dealer” overtime exemption. The Court also examined who is a “... Read More