Ewing Industries Corporation v. Bob Wines Nursery, Inc.
795 F.3d 1324
11th Cir.2015Background
- Aero Financial, Inc. filed a putative class action in Florida state court in 2010 under the TCPA; the claims alleged unsolicited faxes in December 2006 and a four-year limitations period applied.
- The Florida court granted summary judgment in 2013, holding Aero lacked standing due to non-receipt of the faxes and invalid assignment; it did not decide class certification.
- Ewing Industries Corporation filed a separate federal class action in 2013 against the same defendants, seeking to represent the same class.
- Ewing argued tolling of the limitations period during Aero’s pendency extended the deadline for Ewing’s filing.
- The district court in 2014 struck Ewing’s class allegations, relying on Griffin II to hold that pendency did not toll the period.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Griffin II controls and that sequential class actions cannot toll the statute of limitations for later filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Griffin II governs tolling for sequential class actions here. | Ewing argues Griffin II does not apply or tolling should be allowed for inadequate representative. | Defendants contend Griffin II forecloses tolling in this scenario. | Griffin II governs; tolling not allowed. |
| Whether the pendency of Aero’s purported class action tolled the limitations period for Ewing’s class action. | Ewing relies on tolling during prior class proceedings. | Griffin II rejects tolling for successive class actions regardless of the reason prior action failed. | No tolling for subsequent class actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin II v. Singletary, 17 F.3d 356 (11th Cir. 1994) (holds that pendency does not toll for later class actions; no piggyback tolling)
- Griffin v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1476 (11th Cir. 1987) (context for Griffin II discussion on class representation)
- Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (tolling under multidistrict class actions; tolling may apply to individual actions)
- General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (class representative must be part of the class and share injury)
- Yang v. Odom, 392 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2004) (criticizes Griffin II rigidity in tolling of sequential class actions)