Civil procedure--Maestas v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc: The Tennessee Supreme Court's rejection of the doctrine of cross-jurisdictional tolling

University of Memphis Law Review, The, Winter 2002 by De Sanctis Myers, Angela

limitations barred the Plaintiffs' suit unless the pendency of the federal class action tolled the statute of limitations.5 The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment because the statute of limitations had expired.6 The court of appeals affirmed.7

The Tennessee Supreme Court held, affirmed. The commencement of a class action in federal court will not toll the Tennessee statute of limitations pending denial of class certification. Maestas v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., 33 S.W.3d 805 (Tenn. 2000).

The United States Supreme Court announced the class action tolling doctrine in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.8 The Court held "that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action."9 In American Pipe, the State of Utah commenced a Sherman Act treble-damages class action suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.10 The district court held the suit could not proceed as a class action because the requirement that "the class [be] so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable" was not satisfied.11 Subsequently, more than sixty towns, municipalities, and water districts in the State of Utah moved to intervene.12 The United States Supreme Court held:

motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status.13

The Court found this rule consistent with the "functional operation of a statute of limitations."14

This tolling doctrine was designed to encourage putative class members to rely on class actions rather than filing individual suits.17 The American Pipe court found that a contrary rule "would deprive . . . class actions of the efficiency and economy of litigation which is a principle purpose of the procedure."18 Without a tolling doctrine, class members would file protective motions to intervene or a separate action to protect their claims.19 In Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker20 the Court extended the American Pipe rule to class members filing separate actions, thus, clarifying that the doctrine did not apply only to interveners.21

The Court was confronted with the issue of whether American Pipe "applie[d] only to putative class members who [sought] to intervene after denial of class certification, and not to those who . . . file[d] individual actions."27 Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the holding of American Pipe was not to be read so narrowly as to toll the statute of limitations only for interveners.28 Rather, the "filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations `as to all asserted members of the class.'"29

avoid."34

The Court in Crown, Cork & Seal opined that the American Pipe tolling rule is consistent with the purposes of statutes of limitations: "[T]o put defendants on notice of adverse claims and to prevent plaintiffs from sleeping on their rights."35 The class action rule allows class members to rely on the named plaintiffs when the class members pursue their claims.36 The defendants will know they need to preserve evidence regarding the class suit because a class complaint notifies them of the claims being brought against them and the potential plaintiffs.37

Restricting the rule of American Pipe to interveners, the Court reasoned, would decrease the number of individual lawsuits if class certification is denied, but it would also increase "protective" filings by class members pending certification.38 The Court concluded that "[o]nce the statute of limitations has been tolled, it remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification is denied."39 Once class certification is denied, class members can file their own suits or seek to intervene as plaintiffs.40

memories, and witnesses as the subject matter of the original class suit" to avoid prejudice to the defendant.43

American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal involve federal actions and tolling of federal statutes of limitations. Neither of these cases addressed whether the doctrine of tolling applied to state statutes of limitations or whether the Court would recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling.44 Following American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal, few states have addressed the issue of cross-- jurisdictional tolling. Some states that have explored cross-- jurisdictional tolling have accepted it, while other states have rejected the doctrine.

Because American Pipe and Crown, Cork & Seal announce a tolling rule for federal statutes of limitations and class actions brought in federal courts, most state and federal courts adjudicating state law claims have not found that those cases require tolling of state law statutes of limitations. Whether a class action tolls a state's statute of limitations is treated as a matter of state law.45

however, limit application of the tolling doctrines to those cases in which it is clear that the defendant has received adequate notice of claims from the filings of the class action. In particular, courts are leery of applying the doctrine in the context of products liability and mass tort personal injury actions.