Patrickson v. Dole Food Company, Inc., 368 P.3d 959

Background

Plaintiffs are former banana plantation workers who sued pesticide manufacturers in Hawai‘i state court alleging injuries from DBCP; case filed Oct 3, 1997. Six named plaintiffs are at issue on limitations grounds.
A multi-jurisdictional DBCP litigation began with a putative Texas class action (Carcamo/Delgado, filed 1993) that was removed to federal court, consolidated, and dismissed for forum non conveniens by the Texas district court on July 11, 1995 (with a 90‑day delay provision); final judgment entered Oct 27, 1995.
While Texas litigation proceeded, some plaintiffs filed a separate Florida complaint (Abarca) on June 9, 1995 that was never served and voluntarily dismissed July 12, 1995; defendants argued that Abarca and other filings showed plaintiffs knew their claims by June 1995.
Defendants (led by Dow) moved for partial summary judgment in Hawai‘i, arguing the Hawai‘i two‑year tort statute (HRS §657‑7) was restarted no later than July 11, 1995 (or June 9, 1995 for Abarca) so the Oct 3, 1997 complaint was time‑barred.
Plaintiffs argued American Pipe tolling applied cross‑jurisdictionally: the pendency of the Texas putative class action tolled Hawai‘i limitations until class certification was denied (they contended tolling ended Oct 27, 1995 or later), so their Oct 1997 filing was timely.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that Hawai‘i recognizes cross‑jurisdictional tolling; tolling ends when a sister court issues an express denial of class certification (or, if none, when final judgment dismisses the class action). Applying that rule, tolling ended Oct 27, 1995 and the Hawai‘i complaint was timely. The ICA and circuit court judgments were vacated and case remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a putative class action filed in another jurisdiction tolls Hawai‘i's statute of limitations (cross‑jurisdictional tolling)	The Texas Carcamo/Delgado putative class tolled Hawai‘i limitations under American Pipe/Crown, Cork and Hawai‘i precedent in Levi	American Pipe tolling should not extend across jurisdictions; majority rule rejects cross‑jurisdictional tolling due to forum shopping and delay concerns	Hawai‘i recognizes cross‑jurisdictional tolling: a putative class action in another jurisdiction can toll Hawai‘i limitations (adopting efficiency and anti‑multiplicity rationale)
When does cross‑jurisdictional tolling end?	Tolling did not end on July 11, 1995 because the Texas order was a conditional/housekeeping f.n.c. order that did not expressly deny class certification; tolling continued until Oct 27, 1995 final judgment	Tolling ended July 11, 1995 because the district court denied pending motions (including class certification) as moot and effectively restarted limitations	Tolling ends when a sister court expressly denies class certification (or expressly denies the last such motion); if no express denial, tolling ends upon final judgment dismissing the class action. July 11, 1995 was not an express denial; tolling ended Oct 27, 1995
Whether Abarca filing (June 9, 1995) constituted an opt‑out restarting limitations	Abarca was a defensive, unserved, voluntarily dismissed filing and did not constitute an HRCP/FRCP Rule 23(c)(2) opt‑out, so it did not terminate tolling	Abarca showed plaintiffs knew their claims by June 9, 1995 and thus limitations had run	Abarca was not an opt‑out under Rule 23(c)(2) because class was never certified and opt‑out procedures were not triggered; it did not end tolling
Whether tolling applies as to defendants not named in the putative class action	Plaintiffs implicitly argued tolling applies to claims that reasonably relate to the putative class	Defendants argued tolling cannot apply as to defendants who were not named in the original class action	Court agreed tolling does not apply to claims against defendants who were not named in the original putative class action (notice rationale)

Key Cases Cited

American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (commencement of class action tolls limitations for putative class members)
Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (American Pipe tolling extends to filing of individual suits after class denial)
Levi v. University of Hawai‘i, 679 P.2d 129 (Haw. 1984) (adopting American Pipe/Crown, Cork tolling in Hawai‘i)
Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F. Supp. 1324 (S.D. Tex. 1995) (forum non conveniens dismissal and the July 11, 1995 order at issue in DBCP litigation)
Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 231 F.3d 165 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming f.n.c. dismissal on appeal)
Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003) (federal jurisdiction issues arising in the Hawai‘i DBCP litigation)