California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc.
137 S. Ct. 2042
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- CalPERS (plaintiff) bought Lehman securities offered in 2007–2008 and were putative members of a timely-filed §11 securities class action in SDNY.
- More than three years after the offerings, CalPERS filed its own individual §11 suit, opting out of the class after a proposed class settlement.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under §13’s second sentence (3‑year outer limit); CalPERS argued the period was tolled by American Pipe while the class action was pending.
- District court and Second Circuit dismissed CalPERS’ individual suit as time‑barred; disagreement existed among circuits on American Pipe’s applicability to §13’s 3‑year limit.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether American Pipe equitable tolling extends the §13 three‑year bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §13’s 3‑year outer limit is subject to equitable tolling (American Pipe) | American Pipe tolling applies; filing of a timely class action suspends the 3‑year clock for putative class members | §13’s 3‑year clause is an unqualified statute of repose that precludes equitable tolling | The 3‑year period is a statute of repose and is not subject to American Pipe equitable tolling; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a timely class‑action filing counts as “bringing” an individual’s §11 action under §13 | The class filing ‘‘brought’’ (commenced) the individual action for all class members, making later opt‑out suits timely | “Action” means a particular suit/proceeding; a later separate individual complaint is a distinct action not brought within 3 years | Filing the class complaint does not satisfy the §13 requirement that an action be brought within 3 years for later individual suits |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (established equitable tolling for statutes of limitations when a timely class action is filed)
- Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350 (1991) (describes §13’s second sentence as an outside limit or period of repose)
- Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442 (2013) (discusses pairing of discovery rules with absolute repose limits)
- Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010) (explains interaction of discovery rules and unqualified repose periods)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (class complaint provides notice of claims and potential plaintiffs)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (discusses equitable tolling doctrine)
- Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal, 359 U.S. 231 (1959) (equitable tolling precedent cited in American Pipe)
- Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (1946) (equitable tolling precedent cited in American Pipe)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling standards)