Opinion ID: 3133690
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Dow’s Motion for

Text: Partial Summary Judgment The Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to Dow’s motion for partial summary judgment. They counter-argued that the Abarca action was a “purely defensive response to defendants’ efforts to enjoin the litigation of any additional DBCP cases by the Texas [district] court hearing the [Carcamo/]Delgado litigation.” With regard to the statute of limitations, the Plaintiffs asserted that the “continued pendency of the 1993 Carcamo putative class action (consolidated 4 HRS § 657-7 (1993) is entitled “Damage to persons or property” and provides, “Actions for the recovery of compensation for damage or injury to persons or property shall be instituted within two years after the cause of action accrued, and not after, except as provided in section 657-13.” HRS § 657-13 (1993), in turn, contains exceptions for infancy, insanity, and imprisonment, which are not at issue in this case. 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  into ‘Delgado’) suspended the running of the statute of limitations,” under American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414, U.S. 538, 554 (1974), which held that “the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action.” The Plaintiffs also noted that the United States Supreme Court extended American Pipe’s holding in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 350 (1983), to allow tolling not only in cases where plaintiffs sought to intervene in a continuing action, but also where they sought to file an entirely new action. The Plaintiffs noted that this court adopted American Pipe and Crown, Cork in Levi, 67 Haw. 90, 679 P.2d 129. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Levi court made clear that “tolling provisions [extend] to all asserted members of the class, until class certification is denied.” 67 Haw. at 94, 679 P.2d at 132. Applying American Pipe, Crown, Cork, and Levi to the instant facts, the Plaintiffs argued that their Complaint was timely because the Hawaii statute of limitations was tolled by the 1993 filing of the Texas class actions. The Plaintiffs acknowledged that the Texas district court entered a f.n.c. dismissal order on July 11, 1995, but they argued that the Carcamo/Delgado putative class action was ultimately reinstated in Texas state court “as though it had never been dismissed” and 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  “remained pending until it was finally dismissed in September 2007.” Therefore, Plaintiffs argued, their 1997 Complaint was timely.