Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by holding that equitable exceptions apply to mandatory claim-processing rules and excusing a party's failure to timely file a petition for permission to appeal, or a motion for reconsideration, within the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) deadline.

Respondent, Lambert, filed a consumer class action against Petitioner, the manufacturer of an aphrodisiac dietary supplement. The district court granted Petitioner’s motion to decertify the class. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), a party seeking to appeal an order granting or denying class-action certification must file a motion within fourteen days. Respondent moved for reconsideration and recertification twenty days after the order decertifying the class. Respondent’s motion was denied. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Rule 23(f) is non-jurisdictional; therefore, equitable remedies, such as tolling, are available. Currently, there is a circuit split regarding whether non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules are subject to equitable exceptions. Petitioner argues that the decision of the Ninth Circuit not only conflicts with the holdings in all other circuits, but the Supreme Court precedent that claim-processing rules are “unalterable” and “mandatory” if properly raised. Petitioner also argues that the decision of the Ninth Circuit violates the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which expressly prohibit extending the deadline to file a petition for permission to appeal. Furthermore, Petitioner reasons that the Ninth Circuit’s decision contradicts Rule 23(f)’s purpose of establishing a limited filing window, given the “inherently disruptive, expensive, and time-consuming” nature of interlocutory appeals.