 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Christensen v. Philip Morris USA Inc.6/8/2005
of this case. If limitations was tolled during the pendency of the Richardson class action litigation, then appellants' suit was timely filed.
Appellees counter that because Maryland has not recognized class action tolling, and the federal class action tolling doctrine is "not controlling authority" here. In urging us to reject appellants' position, appellees point out that the judicial creation of exceptions to statutes of limitations is "directly contrary to Maryland law," and they remind us that the Maryland appellate courts have "consistently refused requests to create equitable tolling for statutes of limitations where no legislative enactment has permitted such tolling." Appellees also maintain that, because Giant was not a defendant in Richardson, tolling would not apply in any event to any claims asserted against Giant.
Maryland's class action mechanism is found in Maryland Rule 2-231. Our rule is almost identical to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"), from which it derives. See Source note to Rule 2-231 (noting that the Maryland rule "is derived from the 1966 version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23," in whole or in part).
The "primary purpose" of the class action rule "is to overcome the impracticalities of overtly cumbersome joinder requirements." Kirkpatrick v. Gilchrist, 56 Md. App. 242, 249 (1983). Moreover, the rule "helps to promote the objectives of judicial economy and access to the legal system, particularly for persons with small individual claims." Philip Morris, Inc., 358 Md. at 732. As the Supreme Court recognized in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617-18 (1997):
lass-action practice has become ever more "adventuresome" as a means of coping with claims too numerous to secure their "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" one by one. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1. The development reflects concerns about the efficient use of court resources and the conservation of funds to compensate claimants who do not line up early in a litigation queue.
The class action tolling doctrine effectuates the goals of the class action rule, because it fosters the efficiency and economy of litigation. In analyzing the concept of class action tolling, however, we must also keep in mind the purpose for which statutes of limitations are enacted.
In general, statutes of limitations represent a legislative policy determination of an appropriate and reasonable time for a person of ordinary diligence to initiate a legal action. See Pennwalt Corp. v. Nasios, 314 Md. 433, 437 (1988); Goldstein v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 285 Md. 673, 684 (1979). These statutes "are designed to balance the competing interests of each of the potential parties as well as the societal interests involved." Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 296 Md. 656, 665 (1983). For example, statutes of limitations "assure fairness to a potential defendant by providing a certain degree of repose." Id. They also provide a degree of certainty to defendants by limiting a plaintiff's ability to file stale claims, thereby reducing the inconvenience and hazards associated with delay, such as lost evidence, failed memory, unavailable witnesses, and the difficulty in planning for the future because of "the uncertainty inherent in potential liability." Id.; see Pennwalt, 314 Md. at 437-38. Plaintiffs, too, are served by such statutes, because they generally assure potential litigants adequate time to bring their claims, so long as they act with reasonable diligence. Pennwalt, 314 Md. at 437-38; Pierce, 296 at 665. In addition, statutes of limitations "serve society by promoting judicial economy." Hecht v. Resolution Trust Corp., 333 Md. 324, 333 (1994); see Penn
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|