Crossing the Toll Bridge: American Pipe and the Fate of State Law Claims After Class Certification Denial in Federal Court

Authors

• Alexander Schnur, Fordham University School of Law

Keywords

class action; class actions; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; FRCP; Rule 23; FRCP 23; class certification; American Pipe; statute of limitations; statutes of limitations; tolling; cross-jurisdictional tolling; interjurisdictional tolling; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d); state savings statute; state savings statutes; savings statue; savings statutes; tolling agreements; private tolling agreements; equitable tolling; federal common law

Abstract

Rule 23(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provides that, “At an early practicable time after a person sues . . . as a class representative, the court must determine by order whether to certify the action as a class action.” In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the interplay of this FRCP 23(c)(1)(A) class certification decision and statutes of limitations, holding that the commencement of a putative class action suspends the statute of limitations for putative class members while class certification is pending. Over the last fifty years, the American Pipe tolling doctrine has provided putative class members with statute of limitations protection for federal law claims later pursued as individual actions in federal court. However, American Pipe’s application “cross-jurisdictionally”—specifically, its applicability to state law claims pursued as individual actions in state court following the denial of class certification in a federal court putative class action—remains highly controversial.

As an initial matter, this Note considers whether state courts should apply American Pipe cross-jurisdictionally. However, recognizing that cross-jurisdictional tolling has not been adopted in most states, this Note focuses on several alternative mechanisms—namely, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), state savings statutes, and private tolling agreements—that plaintiffs can invoke to achieve cross-jurisdictional tolling in effect, if not in name. Ultimately, this Note concludes that (1) cross-jurisdictional tolling should be embraced in states that have adopted state law analogs to FRCP 23, the federal class action rule; and (2) a broad reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), robust application of state savings statutes, and greater reliance on private tolling agreements can help ensure that putative class plaintiffs who relied on the federal class action mechanism are not unfairly time-barred from subsequently pursuing state law claims individually in state court.

Recommended Citation

Alexander Schnur, Crossing the Toll Bridge: American Pipe and the Fate of State Law Claims After Class Certification Denial in Federal Court, 95 Fordham L. Rev. 845 (2026).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol95/iss2/13