Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Decided
Docket Number
Term
2017 Term
Oral Argument Date
March 26, 2018
Lower Court Opinion
Questions Presented
Whether the American Pipe rule tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.
Case Updates
Supreme Court issues favorable decision on statute of limitations and class actions
June 11, 2018
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a plaintiff may not bring a new class action beyond the applicable statute of limitations period where a previous class action had been dismissed. This will limit the ability of the plaintiffs’ bar to file serial class action complaints against companies in order to game the statute of limitations.
U.S. Chamber files brief opposing expansion of American Pipe tolling for repeat class actions
January 29, 2018
Click here to view the amicus brief filed by the U.S. Chamber, Retail Litigation Center, Inc. and American Tort Reform Association.
Mark A. Perry, David A. Schnitzer, Charlotte A. Lawson, and Rachel S. Brass of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP served as co-counsel for the amici.
Cert. petition granted
December 08, 2017
U.S. Chamber asks Supreme Court to review Ninth Circuit's expansion of American Pipe tolling
October 23, 2017
In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974), the Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for all purported members of the class. Once class certification has been denied, however, tolling ends and absent class members must timely file an individual claim or move to intervene in the suit. A Ninth Circuit panel recently extended the American Pipe rule, holding that tolling applies not only through the initial denial of class certification, but extends to a subsequent class action seeking a second bite at the apple. This approach would allow lawyers seeking to represent a plaintiff class to extend the statute of limitations almost indefinitely.
The U.S. Chamber and Retail Litigation Center filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant the petition for review.
Mark A. Perry, Rachel Brass, and David A. Schnitzer of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP served as co-counsel for the amici.
Case Documents
- Lower Court Opinion -- Resh v. China Agritech, Inc. (Ninth Circuit).pdf
- Cert. Petition -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Brief in Opposition -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Reply Brief for Petitioner -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Brief for Petitioner -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Joint Appendix -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- DRI--The Voice of the Defense Bar Amicus Brief -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- U.S. Chamber, et al. Amicus Brief -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Securities Industry and Financial Markets Assn. Amicus Brief -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Washington Legal Foundation Amicus Brief -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Transcript of Oral Argument -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Opinion -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf