The Roundup covers notable class action decisions each month from federal appellate courts, as well as notable Supreme Court class action cert petitions....more
The FDCPA requires that any lawsuit must be brought, if at all, “within one year from the date on which the violation” of the act occurs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The US Supreme Court will hear argument this month in Rotkiske v....more
On May 13, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, No. 18–325, and resolved a circuit split regarding the statute of limitations for an FCA claim brought by a relator...more
On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018). The China Agritech decision resolved a circuit split, finding that the statute of limitations for a...more
On June 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the tolling rule first stated in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) cannot salvage otherwise-untimely successive class claims. ...more
Germany’s diesel emissions scandal bears a lot of resemblances to the Wells Fargo debacle here at home. It just can’t seem to quit itself. This week, we’ve learned that German authorities have opened a criminal inquiry into...more
Once class action certification has been denied, a putative class member may not start a new class action beyond the applicable statute of limitations, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ruth...more
The U.S. Supreme Court in China Agritech v. Resh, 2018 WL 2767565 (June 11, 2018) ruled that the American-Pipe doctrine—under which filing a class action tolls the statute of limitations for later-filed individual claims—does...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in China Agritech v. Resh et al., a decision concerning the U.S. Court of Appeals’ application of the tolling rule first stated in American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah and later...more
On June 11, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-432, holding that a member of a failed federal class action may not use the tolling rule of American Pipe & Construction...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in China Agritech Inc. v. Resh, presenting, yet again, the question of the extent to which a statute of limitations is tolled while a putative class action is pending....more
On March 26, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (No. 17-432), a case in which the justices will determine whether a plaintiff whose otherwise untimely claim has been tolled by the rules...more
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a plaintiff may bring strictly state-based claims in federal district court if they are related to a claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction. This is more commonly known as...more
On Monday, March 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in an appeal that presents the question whether American Pipe tolling—which provides that the pendency of a class action generally tolls the...more
As we previewed last week, the Supreme Court is considering whether the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for absent class members so that they can pursue a separate class action if the initial action...more
Parties have long argued over whether the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for absent class members so that they can pursue a separate class action if the initial action fails to be certified for any...more
Recently, in Artis v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court ruled on the nagging question of how long a plaintiff has to refile a pendent state law claim in state court after it has been dismissed by a federal court. The...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there were an unprecedented number of changes each month in 2017—and if January is any...more
On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Artis v. District of Columbia, No. 16-640, that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) suspends the statutes of limitations on state law claims while those claims are pending in federal court....more
In the 2017-18 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a number of potentially significant disputes relevant to businesses, including those involving constitutional protections, class actions and other corporate liability...more
On January 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first 5-4 merits decision of the term in Artis v. District of Columbia. In this opinion, the Court held that bringing state claims in federal court stops the clock on the...more
The United States Supreme Court gave plaintiffs an undisputed win on Monday when it decided Artis v. District of Columbia. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that when a plaintiff brings both state and federal law claims in...more
From the standpoint of class action practice, 2017 was as important for what did not happen as for what did. Here are some of the highlights and lowlights of the 2017 class action scorecard, with a look forward to how the...more
On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion in Artis v. District of Columbia, Case No. 16-460, clarifying the application of 28 U.S.C. section 1367(d)....more
The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, allows a litigant with a federal claim to bring into federal court with it any state claims that are so related to the federal claim that they “form part of the...more