That idea doesn’t really feel prefer it ought to be controversial in any method. Afterall, on the coronary heart of sophistication motion tolling of the statute of limitations, as introduced in American Pipe & Development Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), is there have to be a pending class motion. However the idea will get somewhat muddy within the mass tort context, which is why we’ve beforehand argued for an MDL exception to American Pipe. Right now’s case is a transparent instance of why.
First, some background on American Pipe. The Supreme Courtroom 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 go well with been permitted to proceed as a category motion.” Id. at 554. The Courtroom’s reasoning was primarily based on effectivity and economic system. It was making an attempt 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 go well with 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 dealing with 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 necessary in American Pipe tolling instances: (1) in 2012, defendants publicly introduced that its drug utilized in hemodialysis might 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 court docket entered a case administration order directing every plaintiff to file a brief kind grievance that might “incorporate the Grasp Grievance and exchange that get together’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 quick kind complaints on behalf of themselves or subsequent of kin solely that didn’t comprise any class allegations; (7) on September 6, 2018 MSP information its class motion grievance; (8) following a personal international settlement the 2013 class motion was closed in April 2019. Id. at *4-5.
There was no dispute that beneath any state’s regulation, MSP’s claims had been time barred except saved by American Pipe tolling. It was additionally undisputed that as of June 2014, the MDL court docket not had earlier than it any class motion claims. However right here is the muddy half. The MDL court docket 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 instances had been filed, for probably the most half, with respect to the problem of equitable tolling for the needs of the restrictions interval, and for now our desire is to only 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 court docket agreed with defendant.
MDL plaintiffs could 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 quick kind complaints, these new complaints changed the category motion which turned inoperative. Additional, the quick kind 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 court docket acknowledged the complexities of MDL litigation and was unwilling to disregard that the MDL court docket didn’t think about the request for sophistication certification “solely deserted” however quite “held in a type of abeyance, not as a result of plaintiffs had been truly pursuing class certification, however as a device for tolling the statute of limitations.” Id. at *14 (emphasis added). So, the court docket thought of the query earlier than it to be whether or not an otherwise-abandoned request for sophistication certification held in limbo for the only real objective 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 convey ahead particular person claims.
Id. at *17 (quotation omitted).
