On August 3, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a class action accusing Bob Wines Nursery Inc., of sending unsolicited faxes didn’t suspend the statute of limitations for a later-filed action, rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that because the first action never ruled on the class certification, the limitations was tolled.
In January 2010, Plaintiff Aero filed a proposed class action against Bob Wines Nursery, alleging the Nursery sent unwanted fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA in December 2006. In June 2013, the Florida state court granted summary judgment in favor of the nursery because Aero didn’t receive the faxes.
In July 2013, Plaintiff Ewing filed a proposed class action in federal court against the nursery with similar allegations. The appeals panel affirmed the decision of a lower court that Ewing’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The panel found that Aero’s action had not tolled the statute of limitations, relying on a 1994 ruling in Griffin v. Singletary,17 F.3d 356 (11th Cir. 1994) establishing its “no-piggybacking” rule that a class action doesn’t pause the limitations period for subsequent class claims from members of the original class.
The case is Ewing Industries Corp. v. Bob Wines Nursery Inc. et al., case number 14-13842, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.