英语翻译Over six years later,in May of 2002,the three plaintiffs settled their individual claims with the defendants without ever having sought to have the class certified.The instant action was filed four months later in August of 2002.The defen

英语翻译Over six years later,in May of 2002,the three plaintiffs settled their individual claims with the defendants without ever having sought to have the class certified.The instant action was filed four months later in August of 2002.The defen
英语翻译
Over six years later,in May of 2002,the three plaintiffs settled their individual claims with the defendants without ever having sought to have the class certified.The instant action was filed four months later in August of 2002.The defendants sought dismissal of the action based upon the six year statute of limitations for breach of contract and the three year statute of limitations for interference with contracts.The trial court granted the motion to dismiss,but the court of appeals reversed based upon the concept of tolling the statute of limitations when a class action complaint is pending.The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the complaint.
For those of you who enjoy a discussion of the difference between the concepts of cross-jurisdictional tolling and intra-jurisdictional tolling I recommend the case to you.For those of you who desire a listing of state rules allowing equitable tolling during the pendency of class action in the different state courts this case is for you.Suffice to say for my purposes here,the court found that since no class was ever certified prior to the dismissal of the matter in 2002 the pending action did not toll the current plaintiffs claims for any period after the time the original plaintiffs should have sought certification of the class.In this case was it was sixty days after the filing of the complaint pursuant to a local court rule.

英语翻译Over six years later,in May of 2002,the three plaintiffs settled their individual claims with the defendants without ever having sought to have the class certified.The instant action was filed four months later in August of 2002.The defen
六年多以后的2002年5月,三个原告在没有寻求集体证明的情况下,解决了他们对被告的个人理赔要求.在四个月后,即2002年8月,他们申请了及时行动.而被告则试图拒绝这一行动,原因是基于违反合同的六年时效限制以及干涉合同的三年时效限制的这一规定.审判法庭允许停止这一及时行动,但联邦上诉法院提出异议,他们的理由是：当集体的诉讼不满悬而未决时,可以对延长诉讼时效进行收费.最高法院驳撤销并驳回了异议.
对于你们那些沉迷在讨论司法之间收费概念和司法内部收费概念的区别的人,我把这一案件推荐给你们.对于你们那些渴望有一个处理不同国家法院对集体诉讼的悬而不决时,允许合理收费的国家规定的清单的人,本案就是为你准备的.我只能说我在这里的目的就是,法院发现,因为在2002年的这一事件中,由于没有集体曾在撤销之前给出证明,在原来的原告理应寻求集体证明的合理时间后,这一未决诉讼没有在之后的任何时段对现在的被告的诉讼进行收费 .在这种情况下,根据一项国家法律,在诉讼归档后的六十天内为申请时限.