explaining that “[i]n recognizing judicial power to toll statutes of limitation in federal courts we are not breaking new ground” and identifying that the Rules Enabling Act “does not restrict the power of the federal courts to hold that the statute of limitations is tolled under certain circumstances not inconsistent with the legislative purpose”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[i]n recognizing judicial power to toll statutes of limitation in federal courts we are not breaking new ground” and identifying that the Rules Enabling Act “does not restrict the power of the federal courts to hold that the statute of limitations is tolled under certain circumstances not inconsistent with the legislative purpose”
- explaining that “the mere fact that a federal statute providing for substantive liability also sets a time limitation upon the institution of suit does not restrict'the power of the federal courts to hold' that the statute of limitations is tolled under certain circumstances not inconsistent with the legislative purpose”
- recognizing that American Pipe “established that commencement of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations as to all members of the class”
- stating that “the purpose of the statute of limitations is to prevent surprises ‘through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103 (1988)
American Pipe, supra, 414 U.S. 538, and limited in Jolly, supra, 44 Cal.3d 1103.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Wilkins v. Just Energy Group, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 3d 798 (2016)
) The defendants contend that American Pipe is inapplicable for multiple reasons, and stress that “[m]ost importantly,. the cases Wilkins cites are inapplicable as they do not invoke Illinois’ tolling rules, which apply because Illinois law provides the statute of limitations for her IMWL claim.
Distinguished by Vincent v. Money Store, 915 F. Supp. 2d 553 (2013)
The policy underlying American Pipe makes clear that it is inapplicable to named plaintiffs.
Distinguished by Fauvergue v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 82 (2009)
Defendant first asserts that any rule drawn from American Pipe and its progeny is inapplicable because of differences between the opt-out procedures mandated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and the opt-in class actions allowed under RCFC 28.
Distinguished by Singer v. Eli Lilly & Co., 153 A.D.2d 210 (1990)
In ultimately holding that American Pipe (supra) was inapplicable, the court compared the proposed Sindell class with the claims raised in plaintiff’s action: "Sindell described the class as female residents of California 'who have been exposed to DES before birth and who may or may not know that fact or danger, and as a result of which, have or may have contracted or in the future may contract adenocarci
The opinion
Me. Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
I join the Court's opinion and concur in its judgment. Our decision, however, must not be regarded as encouragement to lawyers in a case of this kind to frame their pleadings as a class action, intentionally, to attract and save members of the purported class who have slept on their rights. Nor does it necessarily guarantee intervention for all members of the purported class.
As the Court has indicated, the purpose of statutes of limitations is to prevent surprises “through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.” Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 321 U. S. 342, 348-349 (1944). Under our decision today, intervenors as of *562 right will be permitted to press their claims subject only to the requirement that they have an interest relating to the property or transaction and be impaired or impeded in their ability to protect that interest. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 24 (a). Such claims, therefore, invariably will concern the same evidence, memories, and witnesses as the subject matter of the original class suit, and the defendant will not be prejudiced by later intervention, should class relief be denied. Permissive intervenors may be barred, however, if the district judge, in his discretion, concludes that the intervention will “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 24 (b). The proper exercise of this discretion will prevent the type of abuse mentioned above and might preserve a defendant whole against prejudice arising from claims for which he has received no prior notice.
The provision in Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (c)(1), that an order allowing the maintenance of a suit as a class action “may be conditional, and may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits,” could be viewed to generate uncertainty under the Court’s decision, for the class aspect might be disbanded after the litigation has long been underway. Rule 23 (c)(1), of course, provides that the court shall decide whether a class action may be maintained “[a]s soon as practicable after the commencement of an action.” This decision, therefore, will normally be made expeditiously. And any later alteration with respect to intervention is subject to the discretionary elements of Rule 24 (b), mentioned above, and to Rule 23 (d) (3)’s provision that “the court may make appropriate orders . . . imposing conditions ... on intervenors.”