Tobias Bermudez Chavez v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 933 F.3d 186

Plaintiffs are former banana-plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Panama who allege injury from exposure to the pesticide DBCP between the 1960s–1980s.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Delaware in 2012 against Occidental and others; claims against Occidental were transferred to the Southern District of New York in 2017.
Occidental moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing New York’s 3‑year personal‑injury statute of limitations bars the claims; district court denied the motion, concluding tolling applied from 1993–2010 based on a Texas putative class action.
The Texas Action (filed 1993) was dismissed for forum non conveniens in 1995 with a “return jurisdiction” clause and denied all pending motions as moot; subsequent proceedings included remand, reinstatement in Texas state court, a 2010 denial of class certification, and voluntary dismissal.
Key legal questions (unsettled under New York law) are: (1) whether New York recognizes cross‑jurisdictional class action tolling (tolling in NY based on a class action filed in another jurisdiction), and (2) whether a non‑merits denial/dismissal of class certification terminates tolling.
Because New York courts have not decisively resolved these issues and the answers are potentially dispositive and policy‑sensitive, the Second Circuit certified both questions to the New York Court of Appeals and stayed resolution pending its guidance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does New York recognize cross‑jurisdictional class action tolling?	New York would adopt cross‑jurisdictional tolling (like American Pipe) to promote efficiency and avoid duplicative filings; New York’s borrowing statute limits opportunism.	Cross‑jurisdictional tolling undermines repose, lets foreign proceedings dictate NY repose periods, and encourages forum‑shopping; NY courts would refuse to extend tolling beyond intrastate cases.	Court declined to predict NY Court of Appeals’ answer and certified the question to that court.
Does a non‑merits denial/dismissal of class certification terminate tolling (and did the 1995 Orders do so)?	Tolling continues until an express, clear, merits denial of class certification; the 1995 Orders (denying motions as moot and including a return clause) did not terminate tolling.	Any denial of class status (including administrative/moot denials or final dismissal) ends tolling; the 1995 orders ended tolling.	Court found state authority unclear on whether non‑merits denials terminate tolling and certified the question to the NY Court of Appeals.

American Pipe Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (establishing class‑action tolling principle)
Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (tolling continues until class certification denied)
Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (FSIA ownership rule; relevant to jurisdictional history and related tolling disputes)
Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., 890 F. Supp. 1324 (S.D. Tex. 1995) (forum non conveniens dismissal with return‑jurisdiction clause)
Marquinez v. Dow Chem. Co., 183 A.3d 704 (Del. 2018) (Delaware Supreme Court: return clause + administrative denial did not clearly terminate tolling)
Giovanniello v. ALM Media, LLC, 726 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (American Pipe tolling ends upon denial of class status)