American Pipe & Construction Co. et al. v. Utah et al.
414 U.S. 538 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The commencement of a class action suit 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. If class certification is later denied, the putative class members may intervene or file individual suits within the time that remains on the statute of limitations.
Facts:
- The United States government initiated criminal and civil antitrust actions against American Pipe & Construction Co. and several other companies for conspiring to rig bids in the sale of steel and concrete pipe.
- The government's civil action concluded with a consent judgment on May 24, 1968.
- Under the Clayton Act, the government's action suspended the statute of limitations, giving private parties one year from the date of the final judgment to file their own antitrust lawsuits.
- On May 13, 1969, just 11 days before this one-year period was set to expire, the State of Utah filed a civil antitrust suit against American Pipe and the other companies.
- Utah's lawsuit was filed as a class action, purporting to represent various public bodies and agencies within Utah and other western states who were end-users of the pipe.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Utah sued American Pipe & Construction Co. and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, filing a purported class action for antitrust violations.
- The suit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for consolidated multidistrict litigation.
- Upon motion by American Pipe, the District Court entered an order denying class action status, finding that the class was not so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable.
- Subsequently, various Utah towns and municipalities (respondents), who were putative class members, filed motions to intervene as individual plaintiffs in Utah's action.
- The District Court denied the motions to intervene, holding that their claims were barred by the statute of limitations, which it concluded was not tolled by the filing of the class action.
- The respondents appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the commencement of the class action did toll the statute of limitations for the respondents, and remanded the case for the District Court to exercise its discretion on the intervention motions.
- American Pipe & Construction Co. (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the filing of a class action suit toll the applicable statute of limitations for all purported members of the class, allowing them to intervene in the original suit after class certification is denied?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes, the filing of a class action suit tolls the applicable statute of limitations for all purported class members. The commencement of a class action suspends the statute of limitations for all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action. The court reasoned that the modern Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is designed to promote efficiency and economy in litigation by avoiding a multiplicity of lawsuits. A contrary rule would incentivize all potential class members to file individual protective motions to intervene or join before the class certification decision, defeating the primary purpose of the class action device. Furthermore, the filing of the class complaint satisfies the main purpose of a statute of limitations by putting defendants on notice of the substantive claims against them, as well as the number and generic identities of the potential plaintiffs involved. The tolling of the statute is not an improper judicial modification of a substantive right but is consistent with the Court's established power to toll federal statutes of limitation in circumstances that align with the legislative purpose.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Blackmun
Yes, but with a note of caution. While agreeing with the tolling rule, this opinion warns that the decision should not encourage lawyers to frame pleadings as a class action merely to save the claims of putative class members who have 'slept on their rights.' The opinion emphasizes that district courts retain discretion under Rule 24(b) to deny permissive intervention if it would cause undue delay or prejudice to the original parties. This discretion serves as a safeguard against potential abuses of the tolling rule, ensuring defendants are not prejudiced by claims for which they had no prior notice.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the doctrine of 'American Pipe tolling,' which is fundamental to modern class action practice. By pausing the statute of limitations for putative class members, the ruling promotes the efficiency and economy central to the design of Federal Rule 23. It eliminates the need for potential class members to file duplicative, protective individual lawsuits or motions to intervene while a class certification decision is pending, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and litigants. This case solidifies the representative nature of a class action, affirming that the initial filing provides sufficient notice to defendants to satisfy the purposes of statutes of limitation.
