China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (17-432)

argument 17-432

China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh

Supreme Court of the United States 57 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court’s central question about equitable tolling in China Agritech v. Resh?

John G. Roberts 0:00

Clear argument next in case seventeen four thirty two, China Agritech versus RESH.

Unknown 0:05

Mr. Aronson? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. American Pipe gave individual claimants the benefit of equitable tolling for two reasons. One, the plaintiff had shown diligence by coming to court to assert his claim when class certification was denied. And two, Enforcing the statute of limitations would undermine Rule twenty three by encouraging individual claimants to come forward while the class action was pending. Neither of those reasons suggest that the Court today should expand American Pipe. There's no basis to extend tolling. to absent class members who have not shown diligence by by not filing their own claims when class certification was denied. And once class certification is denied, the extraordinary circumstance of of protective individual actions no longer exists.

Unknown 0:59

Is it your position that once certification is denied, then Uh members of the now defunc. can come in and bring their own individual actions. But that's it. That what what American Pipe preserves is a right if you were a putative member of a class class motion denied, you can then bring your individual claim but not uh any class claim. Yes, if the statute of limitations had expired. And you are seeking equitable tolling. Then American Pipe and Crown Court say that you can come to court and assert your individual claim. If the statute of limitations had not expired, Another class action could be brought And what we're proposing is that the Court Honor the statute of limitations and require that anyone who wants to file a class action come to court early and in no event later than the the running of the statute of limitations.

John G. Roberts 2:10

What about honoring Rule twenty three? It seems to me that you're creating an exception to the rule. If you just read it on its face, the statute of limitations hasn't run because of American pipe and Crown Cork. So why shouldn't that rule be available to you?

Unknown 2:24

The Statute of Limitations has run. What an individual can do is show that it is entitled to equitable tolling. And you do that two ways by showing that you by coming forward to the court And asserting your claim. and to show that the extraordinary circumstances no longer exist. So these people have their claims, but Rule twenty three has run out on them. Remember in this case we already have a determination by a court twice. That class certification is not appropriate. The statute of limitation says run, American pipe and Crown Court say you can bring your action but it has to be an individual action.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:59

I I guess I don't understand, Mr. Aronson, why the diligence argument doesn't work the same way. in the second stage after the denial as it does in the first. In other words, in American pipe what we said was if you're relying on a class action, that's diligence enough. Now, you know, that might itself be controversial, contestable, but that's what we said in American pipe. I guess having said that, I don't see why it is also not diligence enough to rely on a new class action.

Unknown 3:31

What American Pipe and Crown Cork say, it is diligent to rely on the class action until class certification is denied and at that point you must come forward with your claim.

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:41

No, I don't I mean it obviously didn't uh d deal with this case, but the whole theory of American pipe was that uh for any given individual, we weren't going to make them come forward. We were going to say reliance on a class action is sufficient to show diligence. So here these people are doing just that. They're relying on a class action. It happens to be a second class action. But under the same theory They should be able to rely. in order to show diligence, that that's what we said counted as diligence.

Unknown 4:16

But once the class action fails, it is not diligent to rely on an untimely class. That's the difference. The statute of limitations is run. And if the court enforces the statute of limitations, all of these issues would be solved up front. We would have before the court early on in the case All those who wish to present class claims, not wait until the end, not wait until after the statute of limitations, but everyone come in early so that the district court can pick the best representative and make the best class determination of the distance.