TOLL

Issues

The court will decide whether the tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)—which addresses cases involving both federal- and state-law claims suspends the limitations period for a state-law claim while the federal claim is pending and provides an additional thirty days after the federal claim is dismissed, or whether it simply provides thirty days beyond the dismissal of the claim to re-file in state court. Stephanie Artis argues that § 1367(d) suspends the limitations period for state-law claims while the federal claims are pending and provides an additional thirty days in which to re-file after claims are dismissed. On the other hand, the District of Columbia argues that the approach taken by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which only provides an additional thirty days after a state-claim is dismissed, is the appropriate standard. This issue arises in every case in which a district court ultimately declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the case will impact the way in which plaintiffs bring state-law claims in federal courts. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify the applicability of the time limitations in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933 for individual claims brought after a class action lawsuit has been filed in the same matter. Petitioner California Public Employees' Retirement System (“CalPERS”) argues that Section 13 is a statute of limitation, which may be overridden by judge-made rule, as opposed to a statute of repose, which is not subject to judicial extension even in cases of extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, CalPERS asserts that a prior Supreme Court decision, American Pipe, establishes that the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitation as to all putative members of that class. Respondent ANZ Securities, however, argues that Section 13 is a statute of repose, and under the Second Circuit precedent the American Pipe tolling rule does not extend to statutes of repose. The outcome of this case could encourage litigation strategies that decrease court efficiency or, alternatively, benefit large investors at the expense of smaller ones. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a term of supervised release automatically extends if a releasee absconds from supervision. Petitioner Isabel Rico absconded while serving a term of supervised release related to a drug trafficking offense. If Rico’s timer for supervised release was paused while in abscondment, her total punishment would be longer than if it were running. The district court applied the fugitive tolling doctrine, which means that the timer stopped when the releasee is missing, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed her extended sentence. Rico argues that the timer on a term of supervised release does not stop while a releasee is missing. Rico claims that the statute authorizing supervised release clearly does not authorize the use of the fugitive tolling doctrine. In response, the United States argues that the fugitive tolling doctrine must extend to absconders like Rico, that supervision only counts when the defendant is actively under oversight, and that the court should not allow for absconders to manipulate their sentence. This case’s outcome has significant implications on the fairness and rehabilitation for supervised releasees.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources