Category Archives Tolling

In Thomas v. U.S. Bank National Association et al., No. 14-2265 (8th Cir. June 18, 2015), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing a putative class action that alleged the defendants violated the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (“MSMLA”) by charging and collecting impermissible fees in connection with plaintiffs’ principal loan amount. The plaintiffs alleged that they represented some 1,600 Missouri homeowners who obtained a second mortgage from FirstPlus (a now-defunct company).  After issuing loans, FirstPlus sold and assigned the loans and second mortgages to a myriad of different entities who constituted the defendant class in the case. The district court dismissed the case after concluding that the three-year statute of limitations applied to the MSMLA claims and that class action tolling principles did not save the class. This case was but one in a long line of cases against various institutions for allegedly charging and collecting fees…

When a claim appears doomed by the statute of limitations, some plaintiffs reach for the pipe, American Pipe that is. Under the American Pipe tolling doctrine, the commencement of a class action tolls the limitation period for claims later brought by absent class members.  In practice, this means an absent class member may pursue an individual action if class certification is denied without worrying about whether the limitations period is blown. But will American Pipe toll the limitations period if the named plaintiff in the class action does not (or did not) have standing to assert the particular claim in the individual action brought by the absentee class member? The Tenth Circuit hasn't addressed this question.  But Judge Lungstrum recently did, and answered it "yes" --- adopting the majority rule that the named plaintiff's standing is not necessarily required for American Pipe tolling. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Credit…

Close