Bell v. Showa Denko K.K

87 Citing cases

  1. Prieto v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    132 F. Supp. 2d 506 (N.D. Tex. 2001)   Cited 27 times
    Surmising that Texas courts would "interpret the class action tolling rule of Grant and Bell as extending to all property damage claims . . . regardless of the forum in which the class action was filed"

    Texas recognizes a similar tolling principle for state statutes of limitation based on a state class action lawsuit involving property damage claims. Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 757-58 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, writ denied) (citing Grant v. Austin Bridge Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ)). State statutes of limitation are not tolled, however, based on a federal class action lawsuit involving personal injury claims.

  2. Newby v. Enron Corp.

    542 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 56 times
    Characterizing argument that a federal class action tolled state statute of limitations as "weak" due to Vaught and Bell and approving district court's conclusion that "Texas courts likely will not extend American Pipe tolling to this situation"

    However, the Texas courts have not extended this holding to allow a federal class action to toll a state statute of limitations. See Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 757-58 (Tex.App. 1995) (refusing to apply American Pipe tolling to a state law mass personal injury suit based on a federal class action). The court in Bell distinguished the decision in Grant in part by noting that the state rules for tolling are based on state, not federal, law.

  3. Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K

    107 F.3d 1137 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 82 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Vaught, the Fifth Circuit interpreted Texas' tolling rule in light of Bell as follows: " A state (Texas) class action that raises property damage-type claims tolls a Texas statute of limitations pending a certification ruling."

    Hoover, 835 S.W.2d at 672-73 (quoting Citizens State Bank v. Shapiro, 575 S.W.2d 375, 385 (Tex.Ct.App. 1978, error refused nre)). As held in the controlling case for purposes of this appeal, Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 754 (Tex.Ct.App. 1995, error denied) this is because the discovery rule "mandates that the plaintiff exercise reasonable diligence to discover facts of negligence or omission".

  4. In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

    173 F.R.D. 185 (E.D. Tex. 1997)   Cited 5 times
    Relying on Bell's emphasis on the class complaint's providing defendants with notice of the type and potential number of claims against them, Chief Judge Schell concluded that a federal class action did toll state-law limitations because all plaintiffs' claims shared two elements (inadequate warnings and the alleged deficiency as the legal cause of Plaintiffs' injuries) and because the potential Norplant claimants "are readily quantifiable through Defendants' own sales data."

    The pertinent issue in Vaught was whether under Texas law, the American Pipe tolling rule applies to mass personal injury suits. Like this court, the Vaught court looked to Texas law, specifically Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, writ denied), to determine if a mass personal injury class action tolls the statute of limitations for the putative class members. Unlike this court, the Vaught court held that, pursuant to Bell, " the Rapoport [mass personal injury class] actions did not toll the limitations period for the Vaughts [the putative class members]."

  5. Stevens v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

    2010 MT 282 (Mont. 2010)   Cited 52 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mass torts may be subject to class action tolling and explaining that "[w]hile we may later encounter a situation in which a class action suit does not afford sufficient notice to the defendants of subsequent plaintiffs’ claims, we do not believe we are faced with such an instance today"

    Several courts have found this distinction persuasive. In Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. App. 1995), a Texas court declined to extend its existing class action tolling rule to a personal injury class action suit, concluding that the distinction between personal injury class actions and other class actions "is important in determining whether the defendants have received fair notice of the existence of a claim by the filing of a class suit," especially given "the variety of claims necessarily involved in [personal injury cases]." Bell, 899 S.W.2d at 758.

  6. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Abshire

    517 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App. 2017)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding the running of the statute of limitations was tolled for the putative class members’ individual claims against the class-action defendant pending a ruling on class certification under a doctrine analogous to American Pipe tolling

    g of a putative class-action suit in a Texas state court suspends the running of limitations for all purported members of the class" under doctrine "commonly known as American Pipe tolling" and applying that doctrine to claims in case); All Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Vandeventer , No. 02-05-00016-CV, 2006 WL 742452, at *2 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth Mar. 23, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (discussing how all "parties agree that ... the running of limitations was tolled when" class action was filed); Ventura v. Banales , 905 S.W.2d 423, 425 n.2 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1995, orig. proceeding) (recognizing that like federal courts "Texas likewise suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all purported members of the class upon the filing of the class action, such that any time remaining on the statute of limitations of the class members' individual causes of action on the date of the filing of the lawsuit is restored and begins to run again on the date the class action is dismissed"); Bell v. Showa Denko K.K. , 899 S.W.2d 749, 757 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1995, writ denied) (noting that appellate courts have held that tolling applies when "the decision of whether a class was entitled to certification" was pending); Koch Oil Co. v. Wilber , 895 S.W.2d 854, 863 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1995, writ denied) (observing that "statute of limitations was ... tolled subsequent to" filing of class action); Bara v. Major Funding Corp. Liquidating Trust , 876 S.W.2d 469, 471–73 (Tex. App.–Austin 1994, writ denied) (explaining that "interests presented" in suit by attorney general "in the public interest" were "closely akin to the interests presented in a class action litigation," stating that "class actions have been held to toll the statute of limitations when a class was decertified or if class members decided to opt out because strict application of the statute of limitations in these circumstances would be inequitable," applying tolling doctrine from American Pipe to claims from homeowners who filed their own suit after rejecting settlement offer obtained by attorney

  7. Martinez v. Humble Sand Gravel

    940 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. App. 1996)   Cited 10 times
    Applying the discovery rule to cases in which the plaintiff seeks damages for “permanent, disabling injuries” and holding that the claim accrues when the party “should reasonably have become aware of the permanent nature of his disease”

    Id. at 548-49. A defendant must disprove, as a matter of law, at least one of the essential elements of each of the plaintiff's causes of action, or it must establish one or more of its defenses as a matter of law. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex. 1991); Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Tex.App — Amarillo 1995, writ denied). When defendants as movants rely on the affirmative defense of the running of limitations, as they do in this case, they must establish when the cause or causes of action accrued and must negate the discovery rule by proving as a matter of law that there is no genuine issue of fact about when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the elements of his cause of action, or stated another way, the nature of his injury.

  8. Brandau v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

    No. 11-50007 Summary Calendar (5th Cir. Aug. 26, 2011)

    Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137, 1140 (5th Cir. 1997). In support of this conclusion, the court cites Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 754 (Tex. App."Amarillo 1995, writ denied), and Vaught, 107 F.3d at 1142. HOC urges us to adopt this reasoning.

  9. Brandau v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

    No. 11-50007 (5th Cir. Aug. 23, 2011)

    Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137, 1140 (5th Cir. 1997). In support of this conclusion, the court cites Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749, 754 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995, writ denied), and Vaught, 107 F.3d at 1142. HOC urges us to adopt this reasoning.

  10. Knapp v. FAG Bearings, LLC

    3:21-cv-05035-MDH (W.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2022)

    In Bell v. Showa Denko K.K., 899 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. App. 1995), the Texas court similarly held that a claim accrued when the plaintiff “knew of her injury and associated it with” ingestion of a tainted product. 899 S.W.2d at 755