Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)

Citation: Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)
Parent Document: Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1997-07-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7897210/grimes-v-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

912 chars

If the statute of limitations is not tolled by the filing of the class action, “class members would not be able to rely on the existence of the suit to protect their rights. ... A putative class member who fears that class certification may be denied would have every incentive to file a separate action prior to the expiration of his own period of limitations. The result would be a needless multiplicity of actions — precisely the situation that [rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] and the tolling rule of [American Pipe & Construction Co.] were designed to avoid.” Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350-51, 103 S. Ct. 2392, 76 L. Ed. 2d 628 (1983). Potential class members should not be induced to “file protective motions to intervene or to join [a class action] in the event that a class was later found unsuitable.” American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, supra, 414 U.S. 553.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text