In cases where this determination is made by a court of appeals rather than a district court, the statute ordinarily begins to run on the date of the appellate court's decertification order. Kelly v. Cap. One, N.A., 717 F.Supp.2d 805, 807 (E.D. Wis. 2010).

Culver, 277 F.3d at 915 ("since the cost of the notice will be borne by [class counsel] or her client, it might seem that if she wants the class members notified she should go ahead and do it without bothering the district court or us."). Other courts in this circuit have placed the burden of supplying notice of decertification on plaintiffs. See, e.g., Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 2444788, *2 S.D. Ind. Jun. 14, 2011) (ordering plaintiffs' counsel to arrange for notice); Kelly v. Capital one, N.A., 717 F. Supp. 2d 805, 808 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (noting that the court should have ordered plaintiffs to provide notice of decertification); Clarke v. Ford Motor Co., 228 F.R.D. 631,637 (E.D. Wis. 2005) (holding that it would "not require class counsel to notify class members of the decertification order."); Barner v. City of Harvey, No. 95 C 3316, 2004 WL 2092009, at * 7 (N.D. 111. Sep. 15, 2004) (ordering plaintiffs to file proposed notice of decertification). The cost of notification must be borne by plaintiff or her counsel.

Another federal district court has disagreed, concluding that once a class is certified, tolling continues through all appellate proceedings until the case is returned to the district court by way of a mandate reversing class certification.SeeKelly v. Capital One, N.A., 717 F.Supp.2d 805, 807–08 (E.D.Wis.2010); Davis v. U.S. Steel Corp., 528 F.Supp. 220, 221–22 (E.D.Pa.1981).In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 617 F.Supp.2d 195, 199 n. 20 (S.D.N.Y.2007).

Another federal district court has disagreed, concluding that once a class is certified, tolling continues through all appellate proceedings until the case is returned to the district court by way of a mandate reversing class certification.SeeKelly v. Capital One, N.A., 717 F.Supp.2d 805, 807–08 (E.D.Wis.2010) ; Davis v. U.S. Steel Corp., 528 F.Supp. 220, 221–22 (E.D.Pa.1981).In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig., 617 F.Supp.2d 195, 199 n. 20 (S.D.N.Y.2007).