That idea doesn’t really feel prefer it must be controversial in any means. Afterall, on the coronary heart of sophistication motion tolling of the statute of limitations, as introduced in American Pipe & Building Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), is there should be a pending class motion. However the idea will get a little bit muddy within the mass tort context, which is why we’ve beforehand argued for an MDL exception to American Pipe. In the present day’s case is a transparent instance of why.
First, some background on American Pipe. The Supreme Court docket held that “the graduation of a category motion suspends the relevant statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the category who would have been events had the swimsuit been permitted to proceed as a category motion.” Id. at 554. The Court docket’s reasoning was based mostly on effectivity and economic system. It was attempting to keep away from pointless filings by absent class members whereas concurrently defending these class members. The tolling runs whereas the “class” portion of the swimsuit is pending. So, if class certification is denied or if the category claims are dismissed, American Pipe tolling ends.
However what occurs when a putative class motion will get transferred into an MDL and deserted by the plaintiffs who filed it? That was the problem going through the First Circuit in MSP Restoration Claims, Sequence LLC v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., — F.4th –, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6243 (1st Cir. Mar. 17, 2025). Now a procedural rundown, which is at all times essential in American Pipe tolling circumstances: (1) in 2012, defendants publicly introduced that its drug utilized in hemodialysis may result in cardiopulmonary arrest in sure sufferers; (2) in 2013, a bunch of 9 plaintiffs filed a nationwide merchandise legal responsibility class motion; (3) the putative class motion, together with particular person claims, had been transferred to the District of Massachusetts as a part of an MDL; (4) plaintiffs filed a grasp grievance within the MDL that didn’t comprise any class allegations; (5) in February 2014, the MDL courtroom entered a case administration order directing every plaintiff to file a brief type grievance that will “incorporate the Grasp Criticism and substitute that social gathering’s unique grievance”; (6) between March and June 2014, 4 of the plaintiffs to the putative class motion voluntarily dismissed their claims and the opposite 5 filed brief type complaints on behalf of themselves or subsequent of kin solely that didn’t comprise any class allegations; (7) on September 6, 2018 MSP recordsdata its class motion grievance; (8) following a personal world settlement the 2013 class motion was closed in April 2019. Id. at *4-5.
There was no dispute that underneath any state’s legislation, MSP’s claims had been time barred until saved by American Pipe tolling. It was additionally undisputed that as of June 2014, the MDL courtroom not had earlier than it any class motion claims. However right here is the muddy half. The MDL courtroom in a later continuing inquired about whether or not the 2013 class motion was nonetheless “hanging on the market.” Id. at *5. The plaintiffs’ management responded that counsel was:
not planning on shifting for certification, and that these circumstances had been filed, for probably the most half, with respect to the problem of equitable tolling for the needs of the constraints interval, and for now our choice is to simply depart them as they’re.
Id. at *5-6. And that’s precisely what occurred for 5 years. The category motion sat. No plaintiff took any motion to maneuver the category claims ahead and by no means sought class certification. But, MSP argued that the statute of limitations was tolled till the category grievance was lastly dismissed in 2019. Defendant argued that the sooner case misplaced is “class character” on the newest in June 2014 and that’s when tolling ended—greater than 4 years earlier than MSP filed its grievance. The courtroom agreed with defendant.
MDL plaintiffs might elect to file a grasp grievance. In the event that they do, the “grasp grievance supersede[s] prior particular person pleadings.” Id. at *12. Due to this fact, when the unique class plaintiffs filed particular person brief type complaints, these new complaints changed the category motion which turned inoperative. Additional, the brief type complaints adopted the grasp grievance which additionally didn’t comprise any class allegations. Id. at *13.
Whereas that ought to have ended the inquiry, the appellate courtroom acknowledged the complexities of MDL litigation and was unwilling to disregard that the MDL courtroom didn’t think about the request for sophistication certification “completely deserted” however somewhat “held in a type of abeyance, not as a result of plaintiffs had been really pursuing class certification, however as a instrument for tolling the statute of limitations.” Id. at *14 (emphasis added). So, the courtroom thought-about the query earlier than it to be whether or not an otherwise-abandoned request for sophistication certification held in limbo for the only goal of tolling the statute of limitations did actually have such a tolling impact. The reply was no:
To permit such a gambit to substitute for pleading and actively pursuing a category motion would run opposite to the goals of American Pipe, the “watchwords” of that are “effectivity and economic system of litigation.” Neither effectivity nor economic system is furthered by holding a request for certification on inactive life help merely to delay indefinitely the necessity to carry ahead particular person claims.
Id. at *17 (quotation omitted).
Supply hyperlink
