Opinion ID: 3133690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Application

Text: On certiorari, the Plaintiffs present the following questions: A. Whether an order entered on July 11, 1995 – purportedly dismissing the prior class action – that explicitly did not take effect until October 11, 1995 operates to bar Petitioners’ October 3, 1997 lawsuit on limitations grounds. B. Whether an administrative “housekeeping” order included in a forum non conveniens order denying “all pending motions” as “moot” – without specifying those pending motions – put putative class members on notice that class action tolling had ended. The Plaintiffs first argue that the July 11, 1995 order “expressly stated that the Order would not take affect [sic] until 90 days after the date of the Order because it was conditional upon the defendants submitting to certain stipulations to make the Order effective. 890 F.Supp. 1373, 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  1375. As a result, the Order did not become effective until October 11, 1995.” The Plaintiffs argue that the Texas district court’s paragraph denying all other pending motions as moot also took effect on October 11, 1995. Therefore, the Plaintiffs argue, they timely filed their Complaint on October 3, 1997, which was within two years of October 11, 1995. Next, the Plaintiffs argue that the July 11, 1995 order’s paragraph denying all other pending motions as moot was a “generic housekeeping order,” that “did not even refer to a class certification motion,” and “did not contain any discussion of the requirements of class certification under federal Rule 23.” The Plaintiffs argue that the provision therefore “did not [sic], and could not have put, putative class members reasonably on notice of the need to act.” They argue that this court should “clarify the law to require that the termination of class action tolling must be sufficiently clear and unambiguous to put putative members of the class on notice that limitations has begun to run against their claims and they have an obligation to act.” 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER