Sawyer v. Atlas Heating & Sheet Metal Works, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10566
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Atlas faxed unsolicited advertisements to Sawyer on December 9, 2005, allegedly violating TCPA § 227; the four-year statute of limitations applies.
- Park Bank sued Atlas in state court on May 18, 2009 seeking class relief, but dismissed on March 16, 2010 before class certification.
- Sawyer sought to intervene or file his own federal/state action to represent the class for FAX recipients within four years prior to May 18, 2009.
- Atlas removed to federal court, arguing the action was barred by the limitations period; district court tolled under American Pipe as long as Park Bank’s suit was pending.
- Sequel issues concerned cross-jurisdictional tolling, the effect of the first suit’s dismissal on later class actions, and proper application of Rule 23 to Sawyer’s suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether American Pipe tolling applies across cross-jurisdictional, sequential suits. | Sawyer relies on tolling from Park Bank’s suit. | Cross-jurisdictional tolling should not apply; Park Bank’s dismissal ends tolling. | No cross-jurisdictional tolling; tolling depends on federal rule but not here. |
| Whether Sawyer’s later suit may proceed as a class action given Park Bank’s dismissal. | Sawyer should represent the same class under American Pipe. | First suit’s dismissal should bind or foreclose class action status. | Class status may be pursued; Park Bank’s dismissal does not bind Sawyer. |
| Whether the district court correctly treated tolling as continuing while Park Bank’s suit was pending. | Tolling extended the limitations period. | Tolling should end with Park Bank’s dismissal. | Tolling continued only as to claims within Park Bank’s pendency; Sawyer’s claims remained timely. |
| Whether state-law limitations and Tolling rules govern the effect of a federal class action tolling when the first suit ends unfavorably. | American Pipe governs tolling for federal claims. | State-law governs tolling effects when the first suit ends. | Federal tolling governs; state law not controlling. |
| Whether the preclusive effect of the Park Bank decision bars Sawyer’s later class action. | Park Bank’s adverse ruling could not bind Sawyer. | Preclusion applies to issues actually decided; Park Bank’s decision limited to that action. | Issue preclusion does not bar Sawyer; Park Bank’s dismissal cannot bind later class questions. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (tolling for class actions extends to unnamed class members while suit is pending)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1983) (tolling extends to class members regardless of later events in the case)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005) (recognizes federal jurisdiction on §227 actions and tolling concepts)
- Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650 (U.S. 1983) (when limitations depend on state law, state rules determine tolling for class actions)
- In re Copper Antitrust Litigation, 436 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2006) (state and federal antitrust laws create different claims; tolling not transferable across forums)
- Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213 (9th Cir. 1987) (supports question of tolling and class action mechanics in sequential suits)