Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

March 4, 2019

Unanimous Supreme Court Rigid on Missed Appeal Deadline

In a unanimous decision with repercussions for class actions and other litigations, the US Supreme Court held that an appeal deadline was not subject to equitable tolling, showing a rigid approach to one procedural rule and suggesting stringent application of the rule in the future.

In Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, decided February 26, 2019, Lambert had filed a class-action federal suit concerning alleged consumer protection violations. The district court initially permitted Lambert to litigate on behalf of a class, but thereafter, the class was ordered decertified. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) explicitly provides that after a decertification order, Lambert had 14 days to ask the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the decertification order.

However, Lambert first filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied months later. Then, 14 days after the denial of the motion for reconsideration, Lambert petitioned the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the decertification order. Nearly four months had elapsed since the order decertifying the class, far past the 14-day limit proscribed in Rule 23(f). Lambert asserted that his motion for reconsideration tolled Rule 23(f).

The Ninth Circuit held that Rule 23(f) should be equitably tolled because Lambert had "acted diligently" as it pertained to contesting the decertification order, and the court then reversed the decertification order. It noted that Rule 23(f) is "non-jurisdictional, and that equitable remedies softening the deadline are therefore generally available."

The Supreme Court disagreed. "The mere fact that a time limit lacks jurisdictional force . . . does not render it malleable in every respect," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a unanimous majority. "Where the pertinent rule or rules invoked show a clear intent to preclude tolling, courts are without authority to make exceptions merely because a litigant appears to have been diligent, reasonably mistaken, or otherwise deserving."

The Supreme Court held that Rule 23(f) is one such rule. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the 1998 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 23(f), and prior case law "express a clear intent to compel rigorous enforcement of Rule 23(f)'s deadline, even where good cause for equitable tolling might otherwise exist."

This ruling is, of course, a clear direction that Rule 23(f) may not be treated flexibly by federal courts. But it also may signal a preference toward strictness in interpretation of other non-jurisdictional rules. The Supreme Court has made evident that practitioners and judges should not assume that any procedural rule can be tolled for equitable reasons, no matter how good the reasons. As such, litigators should be cautious concerning non-jurisdictional deadlines and remain abreast of other applicable rules that might lead to a deadline being deemed inflexible, as the Supreme Court held in Nutraceutical.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Ryan Ganzenmuller, associate, at, or another member of the firm's Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


COVID-19 Business Interruption Update: New York High Court Affirms in Favor of Insurer


USFWS Introduces General Permit for Bald and Golden Eagle Incidental Take


ORES Executive Director Issues First Denial of Section 94-C Permit Application Following Applicant's Partial Loss of Site Control


New Details About OPWDD Spending in the New York State FY 2025 Executive Budget


Second Circuit Reverses in Favor of Insured in $600,000 Fire Loss Case


New York State Minimum Wage Increases Are Here: Are You Compliant?

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out