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

1,511 chars

Finally, tolling the statute of limitations in this case is consistent with the rationale of the rule in American Pipe & Construction Co. The court in that case explained that rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not designed to limit class action representation to those who are active participants in the litigation, or to those who are aware of the proceedings. American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, supra, 414 U.S. 551-52. During the pendency of the trial court’s determination whether to certify the class, “potential class members are mere passive beneficiaries of the action brought in their behalf.” Id., 552. Although not necessary under American Pipe & Construction Co., Ethel Grimes considered herself a class member, and looked to the Connelly action to protect her rights. She testified at her deposition that she did not file an individual action after her child Delores was injured because she was aware of the Connelly action and believed she had “signed up” to be a class member.15 As potential class members, the plaintiffs had no “duty to take note of the suit or to exercise any responsibility with respect to it in order to profit from the eventual outcome of the case,” until the “existence and limits of the class have been established and notice of mem*255bership has been sent.” Id. Once the class was certified in January, 1987, the plaintiffs did not “sleep on their rights,” but, rather, exercised their responsibility by filing their complaint in a timely fashion.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text