The quote “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result” has been attributed variously to Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein. That probably means neither of them said it. But whoever did, we think the principle applies to class action litigation involving mass torts.

We’ve kvetched before about plaintiffs’ persistent – yet almost universally futile – assertion of class actions in product liability litigation involving prescription medical products. Name a mass tort from the last decade or so – Vioxx, Baycol, SSRIs, Defibrillators, Prempro, Oxy-Contin, PPA, Propulsid. Chances are very high that there’s been an attempt to certify a class action. Chances are equally high that the class action either wasn’t certified, or else certification was reversed on appeal.

In the personal injury context, no class action certified over opposition has survived appeal since the Supreme Court’s landmark Amchem and Ortiz decisions in the mid-1990s. The most recent notable failure in the drug/device context was In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., 522 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2008).

We’ve speculated that a prime reason why the other side keeps this up is that they get something for nothing from even unsuccessful class actions – that something being class action tolling. Getting rid of class action tolling, we’ve suggested, would cut way down on the pursuit of futile class actions in drug/device product liability litigation.

That goes double for cross-jurisdictional class action tolling – the claim that the filing of an unsuccessful class action in, say Pennsylvania, would toll the statute of limitations for potential plaintiffs in some other state, say Illinois. That’s true because mass torts, by their very nature, are themselves cross jurisdictional.

Well, we’ve decided to do something about it. We recently saw another cross-jurisdictional class action tolling case the other day that we liked – Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 530 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2008), modified on other grounds, 2008 WL 2840662 (9th Cir. July 24, 2008) – and we decided that cross-jurisdictional class action tolling is another area where we could keep a scorecard.

After all, the law has been mostly favorable to the defense position, so getting ahold of all of it is a much bigger problem for our side than for theirs.

These are the subissues that we see as significant in cross-jurisdictional class action tolling: (1) the venue, because the statute of limitations in our area of interest is state-specific; (2) whether the claims involve personal injury or not, because some courts are more tempted to toll state-law antitrust or securities claims (again, not our primary area of interest) where the claims mirror federal claims as to which United States Supreme Court decisions mandate tolling; and (3) if the original class was actually certified (an issue in some older cases). We’ll mention that issue too, because plaintiffs relying upon certified classes had more arguments to make in favor of tolling.

Although we considered doing this scorecard on a state by state, rather than chronological, basis, we decided against it because some cases involve more than one jurisdiction – and we’re too lazy to type in a bunch of cases more than once.

So what follows is a list of all decisions we know of that address cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. As always, let us know if we miss something.

  1. Lee v. Grand Rapids Board of Education, 384 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. App. Jan. 21, 1986). Michigan recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling where the prior class was certified. Non-personal injury case.
  2. In re Agent Orange Products Liability Litigation, 818 F.2d 210 (2d Cir. April 21, 1987).  Hawaii would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  3. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 751 P.2d 923 (Cal. Feb. 14, 1988).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  4. Singer v. Eli Lilly & Co., 549 N.Y.S.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. March 16, 1990).  New York does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  5. Hyatt Corp. v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Co., 801 S.W.2d 382 (Mo. App. Nov. 6, 1990). Missouri recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling where the prior class was certified and settled.  Insurance coverage dispute concerning personal injury claims.
  6. Thoubboron v. Ford Motor Co., 624 A.2d 1210 (D.C. App. May 17, 1993). The District of Columbia does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Personal injury case.
  7. Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. App. May 17, 1995).  Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Personal injury case.
  8. Barela v. Showa Denko K.K., 1996 WL 316544 (D.N.M. Feb. 28, 1996).  New Mexico would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  9. Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137 (5th Cir. March 10, 1997).  Texas would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  10. In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation, 173 F.R.D. 185 (E.D. Tex. April 30, 1997).  Texas would recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling in at least some personal injury cases.  Abrogated by Newby v. Enron Corp., 542 F.3d 463, below.
  11. Portwood v. Ford Motor Co., 701 N.E.2d 1102 (Ill. Oct. 1, 1998).  Illinois does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  12. Senger Brothers Nursery, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 184 F.R.D. 674 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 1999).  Florida would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Property damage chemical exposure case.
  13. Staub v. Eastman Kodak Co., 726 A.2d 955 (New Jersey Super. April 5, 1999).  New Jersey recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  14. Wade v. Danek Medical, Inc., 182 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. July 2, 1999).  Virginia would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  15. Thelen v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 111 F. Supp.2d 688 (D. Md. March 30, 2000).  Maryland would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  16. Smith v. Cutter Biological, 770 So.2d 392 (La. App. Sept. 6, 2000).  Louisiana would recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, but only with respect to a class action that had been certified.  Personal injury case.
  17. Maestas v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., 33 S.W.3d 805 (Tenn. Dec. 21, 2000).  Tennessee does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  18. Prieto v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 132 F. Supp.2d 506 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2001).  Texas would recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling where the prior class was certified and settled.  Non-personal injury case.  Abrogated by Newby v. Enron Corp., 542 F.3d 463, below.
  19. Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin, 130 F. Supp.2d 450 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001), partial reconsideration granted on other grounds, 137 F. Supp.2d 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Connecticut would recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling in securities cases. Specifically distinguishing personal injury precedent.  Abrogated by Casey v. Merck & Co., 653 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2011), for failure to look to state law.
  20. Ravitch v. Pricewaterhouse, 793 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. Feb. 25, 2002), affirming 2000 WL 35496909.  Pennsylvania does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  21. Vaccariello v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 763 N.E.2d 160 (Ohio March 6, 2002).  Ohio recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Personal injury case.
  22. In re New England Mutual Life Insurance Co. Sales Practices Litigation, 2003 WL 25953191(D. Mass. May 20, 2003).  Pennsylvania does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  23. Johnson v. American Home Products Corp., 62 Pa. D. & C.4th 20 (Pa. C.P. Philadelphia Co. June 11, 2003). Pennsylvania does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling even where the class action was certified. Personal injury case.
  24. In re West Virginia Rezulin Litigation, 585 S.E.2d 52 (W. Va. July 3, 2003).  West Virginia allows cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  25. In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation, 2004 WL 7081446 (D.D.C. May 18, 2004).  Mississippi does not allow class actions at all and certainly would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  26. Williams v. Dow Chemical Co., 2004 WL 1348932 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2004).  Illinois does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  27. Todd v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd., 2004 WL 5238952 (Kan. Dist. Aug. 20, 2004). Kansas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Non-personal injury case.
  28. In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, 223 F.R.D. 335 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2004).  Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee would recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling in antitrust cases. Distinguishing personal injury precedent.
  29. In re General American Life Insurance Co. Sales Practices Litigation, 391 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. Dec. 6, 2004). Overriding Pennsylvania law to permit cross-jurisdictional class action tolling in federal court of state law economic loss claims.
  30. Stone v. Wyeth, 2005 WL 3589423 (Pa. C.P. Philadelphia Co. Aug. 1, 2005).  Pennsylvania does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling even where the class action was certified.  Personal injury case.
  31. Bozeman v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 2005 WL 2145911 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 31, 2005).  Alabama would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  32. In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, 2006 WL 695253 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2006).  Florida does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  33. In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 183 F. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. May 15, 2006).  Florida would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  34. In re Enron Corporation Securities Derivitive and ERISA Litigation, 465 F. Supp.2d 687 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2006). Predicting that Texas would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Ohio recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  35. Thornton v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 2006 WL 3359448 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2006).  Ohio only recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling for cases filed in federal court, not for cases filed in other states’ courts.  Non-personal injury case.
  36. In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (Dram) Antitrust Litigation, 516 F. Supp.2d 1072 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2007). Alaska, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  37. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 522 F. Supp.2d 799 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2007).  Pennsylvania and Illinois do not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Predicting that Puerto Rico would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  38. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 2007 WL 3334339 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2007). Texas and California do not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Indiana would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Personal injury case.
  39. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 2007 WL 3353404 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2007).  Kentucky would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Tennessee does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  40. Champion v. Homa, 2008 WL 900967 (M.D. Ala. March 31, 2008).  Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, and Washington would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  41. One Star v. Sisters of St. Francis, 752 N.W.2d 668 (S.D. 2008).  South Dakota does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  42. Love v. Wyeth, 569 F. Supp.2d 1228 (N.D. Ala. July 24, 2008).  Predicting that Alabama would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  43. Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. July 24, 2008).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  44. Newport v. Dell, Inc., 2008 WL 4347311 (D. Ariz. Aug. 21, 2008).  Predicting that Arizona would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  45. Newby v. Enron Corp., 542 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2008). Predicting that Texas would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  46. Shimari v. CACI International, Inc., 2008 WL 7348184 (E.D. Va. Nov. 25, 2008).  Predicting that Virginia would extend a holding recognizing cross-jurisdictional tolling in an individual case to class actions.  Personal injury, non-product liability case.
  47.  Easterly v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 2009 WL 350595 (Ky. App. Feb. 13, 2009) (unpublished). Kentucky does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  48. Hatfield v. Halifax PLC, 564 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. May 8, 2009). California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Permits equitable tolling for California residents only.  Non-personal injury case.
  49. In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, 663 F. Supp.2d 1067 (D. Kan. Aug. 14, 2009). Tennessee does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Predicting that Indiana would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  50. New York Hormone Replacement Therapy Litigation (Ansley), 2009 WL 4905232 (N.Y. Sup. Nov. 30, 2009).  New York does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  51. In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 694 F. Supp.2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2010), aff’d, 678 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2012) (see below).  Predicting that Virginia will not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  52. Ottaviano v. Home Depot, Inc., USA, 701 F. Supp.2d 1005 (N.D. Ill. March 23, 2010).  Illinois does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  53. Torkie-Tork v. Wyeth, 739 F. Supp.2d 887 (E.D. Va. June 16, 2010).  Predicting (contrary to Wade) that Virginia statutorily allows cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Personal injury case.
  54. Arandell Corp. v. American Electric Power Co., 2010 WL 3667004 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2010).  Ohio only recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling for cases filed in federal court, not for cases filed in other states’ courts.   Non-personal injury case.
  55. In re Aredia & Zometa Products Liability Litigation, 754 F. Supp.2d 939 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 7, 2010).  Tennessee does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  56. Stevens v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 247 P.3d 244 (Mont. Dec. 30, 2010).  Montana recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Personal injury case.
  57. Centaur Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund Ltd. v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 878 F. Supp.2d 1009 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2011).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  58. Ramirez v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.,  2011 WL 13047300 (D. Ariz. March 31, 2011).  Arizona has not recognized cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  59. Sawyer v. Atlas Heating & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 642 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. May 26, 2011).  Cross-jurisdictional class action tolling is not a concept that applies in federal courts.  Federal courts should follow the federal tolling rule regardless of where cases originate.
  60. State Treasurer of Michigan v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 2011 WL 13220150 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  61. Soward v. Deutsch Bank AG, 814 F. Supp.2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2011).  Refusing to predict that New York would adopt cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  62. Casey v. Merck & Co., 722 S.E.2d 842 (Va. March 2, 2012).  Virginia does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  63. In re Countrywide Finamcial Corp. Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, 860 F. Supp.2d 1062 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2012).  Oklahoma would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  64. In re Countrywide Finamcial Corp. Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, 2012 WL 1097244 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2012).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Although Ohio does, plaintiffs brought their Ohio claims initially in a California court.  Non-personal injury case.
  65. Irby v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 212 WL 897787 (N.J. Super. L.D. March 16, 2012).  Virginia does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  66. Casey v. Merck & Co., 678 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. May 1, 2012).  Virginia does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Personal injury case.
  67. Flick v. Wyeth LLC, 2012 WL 4458181 (W.D. Va. June 6, 2012).  Virginia does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Personal injury case.
  68. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 2012 WL 3155693 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012).  Refusing to predict that Massachusetts would adopt cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Non-personal injury case.
  69. Adams v. Deutsche Bank AG & Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., 2012 WL 12884365 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2012).  New York does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.  Affirmed, 529 F. Appx. 98 (2d Cir. 2013) (on the basis of Florida not allowing any class action tolling).
  70. Quinn v. La. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 118 So. 3d 1011 (La. Nov. 2, 2012).  Louisiana does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  71. FDIC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.,  2012 WL 5900973 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012).  California would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  A federal securities law claim cannot be tolled by a similar state-court action.  Non-personal injury case.
  72. Patterson v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 909 F. Supp.2d 116 (D.R.I. Dec. 19, 2012). Refusing to predict that Massachusetts would adopt cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  73. Vincent v. Money Store, 915 F. Supp. 2d 553 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2013).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  74. Becnel v. Deutsche Bank, AG, 507 F. Appx. 71 (2d Cir. Jan. 11, 2013).  Florida does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  75. In re Countrywide Financial Corporation Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, 934 F. Supp.2d 1219 (C.D. Cal. March 21, 2013).  Statutes of limitations for federal claims cannot be tolled by state-court class actions involving similar claims.  State court action cannot control how federal statutes of limitations operate.  Non-personal injury case.
  76. Blanco v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., 67 A.3d 392 (Del. June 10, 2013).  Delaware recognizes cross-jurisdictional class action tolling. Personal injury case.
  77. NCUA Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 2013 WL 4736247 (D. Kans. Sept. 3, 2013).  California, Illinois, and Texas do not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  78. Adedje v. Westat, Inc., 75 A.3d 401 (Md. App. Sept. 6, 2013).  Maryland does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  79. Kaufman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 980 N.Y.S.2d 276 (table), 2013 WL 5429364 (N.Y. Sup. Sept. 17, 2013).  New York does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  80. Forde v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 2013 WL 5309453  (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2013).  Maritime law does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  81. Chaverri v. Dole Food Co. Inc., 546 F. Appx. 409 (5th Cir. Sept. 19, 2013).  Louisiana does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.
  82. Hendrix v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., 975 F. Supp.2d 1100 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.  Affirmed, 647 F.Appx. 749 (9th Cir. 2016).
  83. Hopper v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2013 WL 8147354 (D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2013).  Alabama would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Federal courts should not predict expansion of state law.  Personal injury case.
  84. NCUA Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 2013 WL 6842596 (D. Kans. Dec. 27, 2013).  So few states recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, that tolling should not be allowed for claims originating in state court.  Non-personal injury case.
  85. In re Bear Stearns Cos. Securities, Derivative, & ERISA Litigation, 996 F. Supp.2d 291 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2014).  New York does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.  Affirmed on other grounds, 829 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2016).
  86. In re Ford Tailgate Litigation, 2014 WL 1007066 (N.D. Cal. March 12, 2014).   California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  87. In re Cathode Ray Tube CRT Antitrust Litigation, 2014 WL 1091589 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2014).  Kansas, Michigan, and Minnesota would not not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, at least with respect to complaints filed in federal court.  Non-personal injury case.
  88. In re Cathode Ray Tube CRT Antitrust Litigation, 27 F. Supp.3d 1015 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2014).  Tennessee, New York, California, and Florida do not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  New Jersey only recognizes it only for claims actually raised by former class members.  Non-personal injury case.
  89. Wang v. Bear Stearns Cos., 14 F. Supp.3d 537 (S.D.N.Y. April 16, 2014).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  90. In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litig., 14 F. Supp. 3d 99 (E.D.N.Y. April 21, 2014).  New York would allow cross-jurisdictional class action tolling where the prior class was certified.   Non-personal injury case.
  91. Rolwing v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., 437 S.W.3d 180 (Mo. June 10, 2014).  Missouri does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  American Pipe does not apply to separate state-court class actions.  Only the legislature can decide to toll statutes of limitations.  Non-personal injury case.
  92. Smith v. Transport Services Co., 148 So.3d 903 (La. July 1, 2014).  Louisiana’s rejection of cross-jurisdictional class action tolling does not extend to a case originating in Louisiana state court but removed to federal court by the defendant.  Personal injury case.
  93. In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation,  51 F. Supp.3d 693 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014).  Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  94. Coe v. Philips Oral Healthcare Inc., 2014 WL 5162912 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 14, 2014).  New York does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Federal courts should not predict expansion of state law.  Non-personal injury case.
  95. Lewis v. Pella Corp., 2014 WL 7264893 (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 2014).  Missouri does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Non-personal injury case.
  96. Romig v. Pella Corp., 2014 WL 7264388 (D.S.C. Dec. 18, 2014).  New York would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Federal courts should not predict expansion of state law.  Non-personal injury case.
  97. Schwartz v. Pella Corp., 2014 WL 7264948 (D.S.C. Dec. 18, 2014).  Minnesota would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Federal courts should not predict expansion of state law.  Non-personal injury case.
  98. Alexander v. Pella Corp., 2015 WL 1798859 (D.S.C. April 21, 2015).  Washington State would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Non-personal injury case.
  99. Wegner v. Pella Corp., 2015 WL 2089658 (D.S.C. May 5, 2015).  Iowa would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  100. Pohutsky v. Pella Corp., 2015 WL 2379496 (D.S.C. May 19, 2015).  Maryland does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Federal courts should not predict expansion of state law.   Non-personal injury case.
  101. Germinaro v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., 107 F. Supp.3d 439 (W.D. Pa. May 27, 2015).  Pennsylvania does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Non-personal injury case.
  102. Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 352 P.3d 465 (Ariz. App. June 23, 2015).  Arizona does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  103. In re Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litigation, 2015 WL 3988488 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2015).  California and Florida do  not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Arkansas, Minnesota and North Carolina would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Federal courts should not predict expansion of state law.   Non-personal injury case.
  104. In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, 2015 WL 4634541 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2015).  Displaying bias in favor of cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Predicting tolling for California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. Pennsylvania and Virginia reject cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling.
  105. Kancilia v. Winburn, 2015 WL 13333689 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2015).  Arizona does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.  Affirmed on other grounds, 678 F. Appx. 531 (9th Cir. 2017).
  106. Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 368 P.3d 959  (Haw. Oct. 21, 2015) Hawaii allows cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  107. Dineen v. Pella Corp., 2015 WL 6688040 (D.S.C. Oct. 30, 2015).  Florida would not not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.   Non-personal injury case.
  108. In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation2015 WL 6243526 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2015).  Displaying bias in favor of cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Predicting tolling for California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. Kansas, Pennsylvania and Virginia reject cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling.
  109. Gould v. Helen of Troy Ltd., 2017 WL 1319810 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017).  New York does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  110. Famular v. Whirlpool Corp., 2017 WL 2470844(S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2017).  Predicting that New York would adopt cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Federal courts may freely predict expansion of state law.  Non-personal injury case.
  111. Boelter v. Hearst Communications, Inc., 269 F. Supp.3d 172 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2017).  Michigan has adopted a statute that allows cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  112. Garcia v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 8222634 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2017).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  113. Mix v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 5549795 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2017).  Washington State would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  114. Embree v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 5632666 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 22, 2017).  Washington State would not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  115. Brandt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 5878581 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2017).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  116. Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 407 P.3d 702 (Nev. 2017).  Declining to decide, on mandamus, whether Nevada would recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  117. Geismar v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2018 WL 276813 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018).  California does not recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Non-personal injury case.
  118. Chavez v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 2018 WL 352810 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2018).  Predicting that New York would adopt cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  Personal injury case.   Reconsideration denied, 2018 WL 620488 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2018).