United States: Guest Post: When Is A Deadline Really The Deadline? – Class Certification, Motions To Reconsider, And Appeals Under Federal Rule 23(f)

Last Updated: April 5 2019
Article by James Beck

Today's guest post by Reed Smith associate Tim Carwinski addresses the broader possible ramifications of a recent Supreme Court decision, Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710 (2019).  This is one of those many cases that we saw something about, but it didn't seem that pertinent to what we do, so we let it go.  Tim let us know that there was more to this decision than was apparent from the legal press, and upon reading his submission, we agreed.  Hence this guest blogpost.  As always, our guest posters are entitled to 100% of the credit (and any blame) for what they write.


Experience teaches that it's best not to get too excited when an adversary blows a deadline.  Most judges, it seems, will bend over backwards to avoid enforcing a draconian rule.  But in the recently decided Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 139 S.Ct. 710, 2019 WL 920828 (Feb. 26, 2019), a unanimous Supreme Court reminded us that there are limits to this discretion when it reversed a Ninth Circuit decision that had allowed a plaintiff to appeal a class-certification defeat under Federal Rule 23(f) after the expiration of the rule's 14-day deadline.

Of particular interest for readers of this Blog, whose clients/employers have been largely spared the class-action volume that some other industries suffer, the Court has given guidance on how to determine which deadlines in general are potentially subject to equitable tolling and which are not.  (The analysis turns not on whether the deadline is "jurisdictional," but on the text of the rule itself.)  Also of interest, the Court appears to cast doubt on whether motions to reconsider can affect deadlines for filing interlocutory appeals.

Federal Rule 23(f) provides that parties may petition to appeal a class certification decision so long as the petition is filed within 14 days of the order.  "A party must file a petition for permission to appeal with the circuit clerk within 14 days after the order is entered."  Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(f).  The Supreme Court reviewed a case where the plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging false advertising of the benefits of an aphrodisiac/dietary supplement.  Nutraceutical, 2019 WL 920828, at *2.  The district court (yes, it was in California) initially certified the class but, following the close of discovery, granted a motion to decertify.  Ten days later (i.e., within the 14-day period), Plaintiff's counsel informed the district court that he intended to move to reconsider the decertification order, and the court gave Plaintiff ten days to file his motion (i.e., to a date outside the 14-day period).  The district court ultimately denied the motion to reconsider, and Plaintiff filed a petition for appeal 14 days after that denial (i.e., well outside the 14-day period, as measured from the original decertification order).  Id.

On appeal before the Ninth Circuit, the defendant-appellee argued that the petition was untimely.  But the Ninth Circuit decided to hear the appeal anyway, holding that the 14-day rule is not "jurisdictional" and, therefore, subject to equitable tolling.  Tolling was appropriate, the Court ruled, because Plaintiff's counsel had informed the court of Plaintiff's intention to move to reconsider within the 14-day deadline and had acted diligently.  Id. at *3.  That led to the not unusual circumstance of the Ninth Circuit being at odds with every other appellate court to consider the issue.  Cue a string cite!  Fleischman v. Albany Med. Ctr., 639 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 2011) (allowing a motion filed "outside the fourteen-day window" to toll the Rule 23(f) deadline "would eviscerate its deliberate and tight restriction on interlocutory appeals"); Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson, 523 F.3d 187, 192 & 193 n.4 (3d Cir. 2008) (deadline is "strict and mandatory" and motion to reconsider after the deadline does not re-start the clock); Nucor Corp. v. Brown, 760 F.3d 341, 343 (4th Cir. 2014) ("An out-of-time motion for reconsideration—regardless of whether the motion is styled as one for reconsideration or for decertification—cannot restart the clock for appellate review under Rule 23(f)" (internal quotations omitted)); McNamara v. Felderhof, 410 F.3d 277, 281 (5th Cir. 2005) (motion to reconsider must be filed within Rule 23(f) deadline to toll the appellate period); Gary, 188 F.3d at 892 (7th Cir. 1999) (if motion to reconsider is late, then the "appeal must wait until the final judgment."); Shin v. Cobb Cty., Bd. of Educ., 248 F.3d 1061, 1064 (11th Cir. 2001) (only "timely filed" motions to reconsider can toll Rule 23(f) deadline); In re DC Water & Sewer Auth., 561 F.3d 494, 495 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (same).

The Supreme Court reversed, and clarified the correct standard.  The 14-day restriction in Rule 23(f) is not jurisdictional, true, because it is contained in procedural rule and not in a statute.  Nutraceutical, 2019 WL 920828, at *3.  This makes it a "claim-processing rule," which may or may not be subject to equitable tolling depending on whether it a "mandatory" claim-processing rule, as determined by reference to the text of the rule itself.  "Whether a rule precludes equitable tolling turns not on its jurisdictional character but rather on whether the text of the rule leaves room for such flexibility."  Id.  If the text of the rule or rules shows a "clear intent" to preclude tolling, then courts are powerless to override a deadline because a party is "deserving" or otherwise diligent.  Id.

Point 1: Under Nutraceutical, the widely employed jurisdictional/non-jurisdictional distinction is not dispositive of whether a filing deadline may be tolled for "equitable" reasons.

Notably, the Court found that the unqualified language of Rule 23 itself was not enough to make its deadline mandatory, since the appellate rules otherwise permit extensions of time for "good cause."  See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4.  What was critical was the text of Federal Appellate Rule 26, which provides that an appellate court "may not extend the time to file ... a petition for permission to appeal."  Fed. Rule App. Proc. 26(b)(1). Nutraceutical,  2019 WL 920828, at *4.

Point 2: Do not expect equitable tolling of any type of petition for leave to appeal, not just Rule 23(f).

In a way, this decision represents a victory for Justice Ginsburg and her 20+ year campaign to stop courts from analyzing deadlines through the imprecise lens of "jurisdiction."  See Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 434-35 (1996) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (it is "anomalous to classify time prescriptions, even rigid ones, under the heading 'subject matter jurisdiction'"); see also Ctr. For Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. United State Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 781, F.2d 935, 945 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (challenging "profligate use" of the word "jurisdiction" in diverse contexts).

But potential disagreements over the future application of this framework loom, as evidenced by the justices' questions at oral argument and the court's decision not to consider certain arguments advanced by the parties.  Justice Breyer and others wondered what would happen if an Act of God, such as a hurricane, made it impossible to meet a filing deadline.  (See Argument Trans. 8-11.)  On this issue the Court declined to rule.  Nutraceutical, 2019 WL 920828, at *5 n.8 ("We also have no occasion to address whether an insurmountable impediment to filing timely might compel a different result.").

Of potentially significant consequence is the Court's not addressing the intersection of the mandatory claim-processing rule and motions to reconsider.  As the Court observed, the rationale for permitting a motion to reconsider is that the order is not "final" when the motion is pending.  Nutraceutical, 2019 WL 920828, at *5.  But a class certification order isn't a final order; it's interlocutory.  See Adv. Comm. Notes on 1998 Amends. to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23.  In the absence of a federal rule governing motions to reconsider interlocutory orders, on what basis would such a motion ever affect the 14-day clock, even if filed in advance of the deadline?  Or alternatively, if motions to reconsider result in a new class certification "order" under Rule 23(f), what is the rule that requires those orders to be treated differently than those stemming from "timely" reconsideration motions?

Point 3: In light of the Court's strictly rule-based approach, practitioners should no longer assume they can file a motion to reconsider and reserve their right to file a Rule 23(f) appeal later.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions