applying American Pipe tolling to successive class action
How later courts described this case
- applying American Pipe tolling to successive class action
- “Rhode Island courts recognize a cause of action for inverse condemnation, allowing for recovery when a governmental entity exercising land use restrictions or regulations effectively takes property without formally exercising its eminent domain power.”
- post- Dukes [564 U.S. 338, 131 S.Ct. 2541 ] plaintiffs are entitled to pursue Title VII pattern or practice claims against Wal-Mart in four regional stores in California
- post-Dukes [ 564 U.S. 338 ] plaintiffs are entitled to pursue Title VII pattern or practice claims against Wal- Mart in four regional stores in California
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018)
792 F.3d 637, 643 (6th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he pattern-or- practice theory is not available to individual plaintiffs”) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds China Agritech v. Michael H. Resh, 584 U.S. 732
The opinion
COOK, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
I agree with the majority that Andrews does not bar consideration of the proposed *654 Rule 23(b)(3) class. See Maj. Op. at 645-49; see also In re Vertrue, 719 F.3d at 479-80. I cannot agree, however, that we can read Andrews so narrowly as to allow the proposed 23(b)(2) class to go forward. Though the plaintiffs and the district court offer persuasive reasons to doubt the wisdom of Andrews, I believe it binds us to dismiss the 23(b)(2) claims absent reconsideration by the full court. See Grundy Mining Co. v. Flynn, 353 F.3d 467, 479 (6th Cir.2003) (noting that we do not “enjoy greater latitude” in departing from prior published decisions “where our precedents purportedly are tainted by analytical flaws”). I would therefore vacate and remand the district court’s judgment only as to the putative 23(b)(3) class.