Ari Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc
909 F.3d 604
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Dr. Ari Weitzner (sole shareholder of Ari Weitzner M.D. P.C.) received two unsolicited faxes on April 21, 2004 and March 22, 2005 and filed a putative class action in Pennsylvania state court alleging TCPA violations.
- The state court denied class certification on June 27, 2008; the state case continued as an individual action by Dr. Weitzner and no final judgment has been entered.
- Defendants ceased sending unsolicited faxes in April 2005. The federal four‑year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 1658) therefore ran in 2008 and 2009 for the two faxes.
- Plaintiffs filed a federal suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on November 26, 2011 asserting (a) class claims and (b) individual claims by Dr. Weitzner and by the P.C., relying on American Pipe tolling.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling plaintiffs’ claims untimely and striking portions of plaintiffs’ Local Rule 56.1 response as argumentative; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether American Pipe tolling permits a successive class action in federal court after a prior state putative class action | Tolling from the state putative class action should allow filing a follow‑on class action | American Pipe does not permit successive class actions outside the limitations period | Denied — China Agritech forecloses tolling for successive class actions; class claims untimely |
| Whether American Pipe tolls the statute for a named plaintiff who brought the original putative class action (Dr. Weitzner) | Named plaintiff should receive tolling because American Pipe language broadly tolls members of the putative class | Named plaintiffs are not the “passive” absent class members American Pipe protects; they already had a timely filing | Denied — American Pipe does not toll named plaintiffs’ claims; Dr. Weitzner’s individual claims untimely |
| Whether American Pipe tolls the statute for the corporate plaintiff (Weitzner P.C.) closely connected to the named plaintiff | The P.C. should benefit from tolling as a putative class member in the state case | The P.C. had actual notice (sole shareholder), did not act with diligence, and tolling would permit duplicative litigation benefiting the same person | Denied — P.C. not entitled to equitable tolling; its claims untimely |
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion applying M.D. Pa. L.R. 56.1 to strike portions of plaintiffs’ response | Stricken portions were only partially noncompliant and plaintiffs should have been allowed to refile | Court has discretion to enforce local rules and strike noncompliant responses; sanction appropriate | Denied — no abuse of discretion; any Rule 56.1 error would be harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (establishes tolling for unnamed putative class members during pendency of a class action)
- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018) (clarifies American Pipe does not allow successive class actions after limitations period expires)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011) (describes benefits nonparties may receive from class suits, including tolling-related effects)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (recognizes that unnamed class members may receive tolling effects)
- Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650 (1983) (explains unnamed plaintiffs are to be treated as though named for tolling purposes)