Va. Supreme Court rules in Merck class action

Legal Newsline ^ | 3-7-12 | MichaelP. Tremoglie

[Miami Vice]

The Virginia Supreme Court has issued a ruling in the case of Casey v. Merck & Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had asked the Virginia court to rule on two issues regarding Virginia law and a statute of limitations for class actions.

A class action was filed ...

[humblegunner]

Look at all the articles you post from this single source:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:miamivice/index?tab=articles

One might almost think you had an agenda.
Like promoting that site by using FR’s traffic.

My goodness, isn’t that scummy.

[for-q-clinton]

So what’s the synopsis? What’s the ruling and the expected impact?

[Real Cynic No More]

One might almost think you had an agenda.

I'm sure that most freepers do not visit such legal sites, so he's doing us all a favor by bringing these issues to our attention. I, for one, appreciate that, because I don't have time to spend all day looking everywhere on the web for information that I may not even know exists.

Sheesh!!

[Real Cynic No More]

Thanks for calling this to our attention. The source is not one that I routinely peruse.

[longtermmemmory]

The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Appeals court said Virginia law governed this. It sent the case to the Virginia Supreme Court to determine:

“(1) Does Virginia law permit equitable tolling of a state statute of limitations due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction?”

“(2) Does Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-229(E)(1) permit tolling of a state statute of limitations due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction?”

The Virginia Supreme Court said, “For the filing of an action to toll the statute of limitations from running on a subsequently filed action pursuant to [statutory tolling], there must be identity of the parties in the two lawsuits ... there is no identity of parties between the named plaintiff in a putative class action and the named plaintiff in a subsequent action filed by a putative class member individually.

“Consequently, a putative class action cannot toll the running of the statutory period for unnamed putative class members who are not recognized under Virginia law as plaintiffs or represented plaintiffs in the original action.

The Virginia responded to the questions asked by the Appeals Court: “... this Court holds that Virginia recognizes neither equitable nor statutory tolling due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction.”

Filed Under: State Supreme Courts