Fifth Circuit

A recent Fifth Circuit decision, Ackerman v. Arkema Inc., reinforces that Texas law does not permit cross-jurisdictional tolling, and that federal courts in the Fifth Circuit will enforce that, notwithstanding federal tolling rules for class actions.  Ackerman v. Arkema Inc., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 3039221 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025).

Following chemical explosions at Arkema’s Crosby, Texas facility in 2017, property owners filed a federal class action seeking injunctive and monetary relief. The district court certified a class for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) but declined to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). After the injunctive claims settled, nearly 800 class members filed individual suits in Texas state court seeking monetary damages.  All were filed well outside the two-year limitations period under Texas law.  The cases were then removed to federal court, and the defendant moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds.

Plaintiffs argued that the federal class action tolled the state limitations period under the rule established by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).  Arkema responded that Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling. The district court agreed, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, citing two of its prior decisions. In Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137 (5th Cir. 1997), the Fifth Circuit had first addressed whether Texas would adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling and concluded it would not, emphasizing that tolling rules applicable to claims brought under Texas law are grounded in state—not federal—law. Later, in Newby v. Enron Corp., 542 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2008), the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that holding, rejecting arguments that tolling should apply when defendants had notice of claims or when property-related claims were involved. Both cases underscore that Texas courts have recognized tolling only for class actions filed in Texas state courts and that this rule remains binding for Texas state-law claims in federal court.

Judge Haynes dissented in part, arguing that the court should have certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. The dissent highlighted practical concerns, noting that requiring individuals to file separate suits while a class action is pending undermines judicial efficiency and the purpose of class actions.

This decision confirms that, where state-law claims are at issue, American Pipe tolling will not override state law that does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling.

 …
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Clarifies No Cross-Jurisdictional Tolling in Texas

In a recent published decision, the Fifth Circuit declined to articulate a rule for the “order and depth in which” it “grapples with constitutional standing and the Rule 23 inquiry.”  Chavez v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc., __ F.4th __, No. 22-50368, 2023 WL 5160393 (5th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023).  The court concluded that the plaintiffs—three employees who participated in health and retirement plans administered by the defendants—had standing to sue on behalf of absent class members who participated in thousands of different benefits plans administered by the defendants.  The court went on to affirm the district court’s certification of two classes, each under both Rules 23(b)(1)(B) and 23(b)(3).Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Declines to Wade Into Circuit Split on Relationship Between Standing and Class Certification

The Fifth Circuit reversed a class certification order for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) because the plaintiff lacked Article III standing.  Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C., No. 21-50958, 2022 WL 3355249 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2022).  The Court held that merely sending a letter to collect a time-barred debt, although a violation of the FDCPA, does not satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Applies TransUnion To Conclude Plaintiff Lacked Standing To Assert FDCPA Claims.