United States: China Agritech: The Supreme Court Ends Class Action "Stacking"

This week, in the closely watched case of China Agritech v. Resh,1 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important class action ruling, holding that the tolling principles announced in its earlier American Pipe decision2 do not allow absent class members to file follow-on class action lawsuits where the statute of limitations has otherwise expired on their claims.

As we have previously noted, the question of whether American Pipe tolling applies to subsequent class action filings, not just subsequent individual actions, is important because the answer dictates whether American Pipe tolling principles enable the filing of successive (stacked) class actions in a seemingly endless effort to finally achieve certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Although some federal courts of appeal had previously held that American Pipe tolling is available for subsequent Rule 23 actions, the Supreme Court in China Agritech has now ruled unanimously that such cases were wrongly denied.3 "We hold that American Pipe does not permit a plaintiff who waits out the statute of limitations to piggyback on an earlier timely filed class action."4

Key Aspects of the Supreme Court's Reasoning and Holding

In our earlier report on oral argument in the case, we identified three critical issues on which the Supreme Court's decision would likely turn: (1) whether absent class members who waited until after certification was denied to seek to file their own class action would be viewed as acting diligently; (2) whether a decision on class action stacking could lead to anomalous results; and (3) whether the availability of American Pipe tolling should depend on the reason for a class certification denial. Indeed, the answers to these questions proved to be outcome determinative in China Agritech.

1. Plaintiffs Who Engage in Class Action Stacking Have Not Been Diligent.

The Supreme Court noted that while its 1974 American Pipe decision did not formally analyze the equitable tolling doctrine—which requires a plaintiff to show that some "extraordinary circumstance" prevented her from discovering her claim until after the expiration of the limitations period despite "diligent" pursuit of her rights5—an absent class member who promptly intervenes in a timely filed class action to assert his individual claims has been sufficiently diligent.6 By contrast, however, a would-be class representative who commences a new and untimely class action case "can hardly qualify as diligent in asserting claims and pursuing relief."7 This is especially true because Rule 23(c) encourages district courts to make class certification decisions at an early practicable time, and expressly permits them to take account of multiple class representative filings.8

2. Permitting Class Action Stacking Would Lead to Anomalous Results.

The notion of interpreting American Pipe to permit class action stacking troubled the Supreme Court. "Respondents' proposed reading would allow the statute of limitations to be extended time and again" and would permit "lawyers seeking to represent a plaintiff class to extend the statute of limitations almost indefinitely until they find a district judge who is willing to certify the class."9 Thus, the Supreme Court held that "endless tolling of a statute of limitations is not a result envisioned by American Pipe."10

On the other hand, however, the court was not persuaded by respondents' argument that a multiplicity of needless protective class action filings would occur without the availability of American Pipe tolling for class cases. Indeed, the court noted that in those circuits that have declined to extend American Pipe to class actions, there is no indication of a rash of protective class action filing as a result.11 The court also was unconcerned by the prospect of multiple class filings because they could aid a district court in making an early determination as to the appropriateness of class treatment, as well as which class representative was best.12 It noted that district courts are familiar with, and have ample tools at their disposal to manage, complex cases and multiple filings.13

Finally, the Supreme Court rejected respondents' overly broad view of its recent decisions in Shady Grove14 and Tyson Foods15 as supposedly compelling a reading that American Pipe tolling be available for subsequent class actions. Shady Grove held that a state law barring class actions of a particular type could not restrict the filing of a class action in federal court that otherwise satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. But the Supreme Court concluded that the China Agritech case presented the reverse situation. Instead of a state law that purported to trump the operation of Federal Rule 23, respondents' class claims would be untimely unless saved by the American Pipe tolling exception. 16 Likewise, unlike the attempted recourse to Rule 23 to abridge a substantive right that was suggested in Tyson Foods, respondents had no substantive right to bring claims outside the statute of limitations.17

3. The Availability of American Pipe Tolling in a Subsequent Class Action Does Not Depend on the Reason for the Underlying Class Certification Denial.

As reflected at oral argument, this issue was the most contentious. Despite its divisive nature, however, the majority decision expressly answered this question in the negative. Justice Sotomayor's separate concurring opinion—agreeing with the result but not with the majority's reasoning or analysis—expressly argued that this Private Securities Litigation Reform Act case had different attributes than other class cases, including a five-year statute of repose and a provision requiring notification of the commencement of a class action, such that Justice Sotomayor believed the Court's decision was broader than necessary. Likewise, Justice Sotomayor argued that while American Pipe tolling might not be appropriate if the denial of class certification was based on the suitability of the claims for class treatment, tolling should be available if certification was denied because of deficiencies with the lead plaintiff. Significantly, however, the majority opinion expressly rejected each of these arguments, explaining that its holding that American Pipe tolling does not apply to subsequent class action filings does not hinge on the reason for the underlying denial of class certification.18

Import of the Ruling

China Agritech resolves what had been a three-way split in the federal courts of appeal,19 with the Supreme Court definitively holding that American Pipe tolling does not apply to putative class members who bring subsequent, untimely class claims. In light of this ruling, pending class cases throughout the country that have relied on American Pipe tolling will likely be reexamined. Class action defendants who secure a class certification denial should have greater certainty that the class litigation will not become a multi-headed hydra.

Going forward, we may see more class cases that are filed with multiple named representatives, rather than single class representatives. Moreover, class counsel may be forced to become more cautious about selecting strongly suited lead plaintiffs, rather than settling for the first prospective plaintiff who responds to the attorney solicitation or otherwise demonstrates willingness to bring a claim. Finally, given the court's emphasis on Rule 23(c), we would not be surprised to see some courts pressing for early class certification determinations as long as they are practicable.


1 South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

2 Transcript of Oral Argument at 3, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

3 National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967).

4 Brief for the Petitioner at 35, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

5 Transcription of Oral Argument at 14, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018); See also COLO. REV. STAT. § 39-21-112(3.5), Colorado's reporting statue, which requires internet retailers to either report all sales made to the state's residents or to collect the tax.

Even more recently, some states have started to require online marketplaces like Amazon, Ebay, and Etsy to collect tax on behalf of the smaller vendors who use those platforms to sell their own goods. See JONATHAN BERR, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR AMAZON SELLERS SALES TAXES? (Oct. 31, 2017). https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-responsible-for-amazon-sellers-sales-taxes/. Additionally, Amazon announced in January 2018 that it would comply with a subpoena to turn over third party vendor information to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue. See RYAN PRETE, AMAZON GATHERING MARKETPLACE SELLER DATA FOR MASSACHUSETTS (Jan. 23, 2018). https://www.bna.com/amazon-gathering-marketplace-n73014474546/.

6 Direct Mktg. Ass'n v. Brohl, 135 S. Ct. 1124, 1135 (2015).

7 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 10-64-2 (2016). (limiting the obligation to sellers with gross revenue from sales in South Dakota of over US$100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions, within one year.

8 Transcript of Oral Argument at 4, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

9 Id. at 16.

10 Id. at 4, 26.

11 Id. at 5. See also Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (The Pike Balancing test requires a court to determine whether state regulations effectuating a "legitimate local public interest" impose a burden on interstate commerce that is "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." The "extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities").

12 Transcript of Oral Argument at 21, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

13 Id. at 22.

14 Id.

15 Id. at 23.

16 Id. at 10.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 11.

20 Id.

21 Id. at 12.

22 Id. at 13.

23 Id. at 11.

24 Id. at 13.

25 Id. at 3.

26 Id. at 4.

27 Id. at 17.

28 Brief of United States Senators, et al Supporting Petitioner South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018). (Heidi Heitkamp is a United States Senator from North Dakota, Lamar Alexander is a United States Senator from Tennessee, Richard Durbin is a United States Senator from Illinois, and Michael Enzi is a United States Senator from Wyoming).

29 Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 318 (1992). ("No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions... Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes").

30 Reply of Petitioner South Dakota, South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2211, (U.S. Apr. 13, 2018).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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