The commencement of a class action tolls statutes of limitations for all members of the putative class. This rule, so simply stated by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, has proved complicated in practice. Since American Pipe, lower courts have disagreed about the circumstances under which the tolling rule applies. Though the Court has resolved many of these disagreements, some uncertainties remain. This Comment takes up two of those questions. First, does tolling benefit plaintiffs who sue while class certification is pending? Second, does tolling benefit plaintiffs who opt out of a certified class? My analysis takes advantage of two recent Supreme Court decisions that clarify the legal basis of a doctrine left untouched for over three decades. These decisions make clear that American Pipe is a creature of courts’ equitable powers. This fact limits when tolling can apply. Most importantly, the judicially crafted tolling rule must respect the statutory intent of the time bar to be tolled. I argue that class action tolling respects the statutory intent of time bars only when plaintiffs claiming tolling have plausibly relied on the class action proceedings. This general rule, applied to the questions considered in this Comment, yields different answers depending on the exact time bars faced by plaintiffs. In general, plaintiffs facing a statute of limitations should benefit from tolling only if they sue after the class is denied certification or otherwise terminates. But plaintiffs facing two time bars—a statute of limitations and a statute of repose—should, in some cases, benefit from tolling even when they file before the certification ruling

集体诉讼的开始使假定集体的所有成员都受到诉讼时效的限制。最高法院在 American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah 案中简单阐述的这条规则在实践中证明是复杂的。自 American Pipe 以来，下级法院对收费规则适用的情况存在分歧。尽管法院已经解决了其中的许多分歧，但仍然存在一些不确定性。本评论回答了其中两个问题。首先，收费是否有利于在班级认证悬而未决期间提起诉讼的原告？其次，收费是否使选择退出认证课程的原告受益？我的分析利用了最高法院最近的两项裁决，这些裁决澄清了一项长达 30 多年未触及的学说的法律基础。这些决定清楚地表明，American Pipe 是法院衡平法权力的产物。这一事实限制了何时可以适用收费。最重要的是，司法制定的收费规则必须尊重要收费的时间限制的法定意图。我认为，只有在声称收费的原告合理地依赖集体诉讼程序时，集体诉讼收费才尊重时间限制的法定意图。这条一般规则适用于本评论中考虑的问题，根据原告面临的确切时间限制产生不同的答案。一般来说，面临诉讼时效的原告只有在课程被拒绝认证或以其他方式终止后提起诉讼时才应受益于收费。但是，在某些情况下，面临两个时间限制的原告——诉讼时效和休息法——应该，