Skip to main content

FRCP 23

China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh

Issues

Does the rule announced in American Pipe, tolling the statute of limitations for individual actions filed after a failed class action, also apply to subsequent class actions?

In American Pipe, the Court held that the statute of limitations is tolled for an individual that files an action after a related class action fails. This case asks the Court to decide whether American Pipe tolling also applies to subsequent class actions. China Agritech, Inc. argues that American Pipe tolling should not apply to subsequent class actions, because such an extension would be inequitable and would conflict with the rationale surrounding current law on class action procedures. Michael Resh counters that American Pipe tolling should apply to subsequent class actions because such an extension would be both equitable and consistent with current law and precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling could potentially relax the urgency and attentiveness required of class action members, or emphasize the importance of awareness and involvement individuals must display to share in the judgment won by the asserted members of their class. The decision could also implicate burdens on the courts, separation of powers issues, and practical considerations for class action plaintiffs and defendants.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the rule of American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.

China Agritech, Inc. (“China Agritech”) is a Delaware-incorporated holding company with its principal place of business located in Beijing, China. Resh v. China Agritech, Inc., 857 F.3d 994, 996. China Agritech claims to sell organic fertilizers and related products to farmers throughout China. Id.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to FRCP 23