STATUTE OF LIMITATION

Issues

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

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) requires companies issuing a security to create offering documents that adequately outline the security’s risks to potential investors. Section 13 of the Securities Act requires a plaintiff to file a Securities Act claim within three years to allege the existence of material misstatements or omissions in these offering documents. In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, however, the Supreme Court held that many statutory time limits could be “tolled” or stopped when plaintiffs are potential members of an existing class action dealing with the same legal claim. This case should decide whether or not the time limitation in § 13 is the sort of limit subject to this “American Pipe rule.” The decision has implications for the efficiency of courts and stock issuers alike.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Kwai Fun Wong, a Hong Kong citizen, filed an administrative claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleging that federal employees injured Wong during immigration detention. After an administrative denial, Wong sought to file her claim in federal court; however, the United States asserted that Wong filed the claim after the FTCA’s filing deadline and that Wong’s claim was therefore time-barred. The Ninth Circuit held that the claim was not time-barred because the FTCA’s filing deadline is subject to equitable tolling that excuses Wong’s late filing. The Supreme Court’s resolution of this case will affect the procedure litigants must follow before suing the United States government, which will also impact the flow of litigation against the United States in federal court. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources