InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh

The Court held that upon denial of class certification, a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations.

138 S. Ct. 1800 · No. 17-432 · 2017 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jun 11, 2018 · argued Mar 26, 2018

Judicial power · Judicial administration: untimely filing

Majority opinion: Ruth Ginsburg

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Reversed and remanded. China Agritech, Inc. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

China Agritech, Inc. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that upon denial of class certification, a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2017 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorGinsburgBreyerKaganKennedyJ. RobertsGorsuchAlitoThomas

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
China Agritech, Inc.Business, corporation
Respondent
ReshStockholder, shareholder, or bondholder
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Decided by
Federal common law; Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 11, 2018DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. China Agritech, Inc. won.
  2. Mar 26, 2018ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Central U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

32 other argued cases since 1946 on judicial administration: untimely filing, newest first.

  1. Harrow v. Department of Defense601 U.S. 480May 16, 2024 · 601 U.S. 480Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  2. Cameron v. Emw Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C.142 S. Ct. 1002Mar 3, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1002Judicial power8–18–1 band
  3. Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. Hunt139 S. Ct. 1507May 13, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 1507Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  4. Artis v. District of Columbia138 S. Ct. 594Jan 22, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 594Judicial power5–45–4 band

  5. Cal Public Employees' Retirement Sys. v. Anz Securities137 S. Ct. 2042Jun 26, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 2042Judicial power5–45–4 band
  6. Mata v. Lynch576 U.S. 143Jun 15, 2015 · 576 U.S. 143Judicial power8–18–1 band

  7. Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs571 U.S. 177Jan 15, 2014 · 571 U.S. 177Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  8. Rafael Arriaza Gonzales v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division565 U.S. 134Jan 10, 2012 · 565 U.S. 134Judicial power8–18–1 band

  9. Wanda Krupski v. Costa Crociere S. P. A.560 U.S. 538Jun 7, 2010 · 560 U.S. 538Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  10. Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Norman Carpenter558 U.S. 100Dec 8, 2009 · 558 U.S. 100Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  11. United States ex rel. Irwin Eisenstein v. City of New York, New York, et al.556 U.S. 928Jun 8, 2009 · 556 U.S. 928Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  12. Carlos Jimenez v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division555 U.S. 113Jan 13, 2009 · 555 U.S. 113Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  13. John R. Sand & Gravel Company v. United States552 U.S. 130Jan 8, 2008 · 552 U.S. 130Judicial power7–27–2 band

  14. Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell, Warden551 U.S. 205Jun 14, 2007 · 551 U.S. 205Judicial power5–45–4 band

  15. BP America Production Company, Successor in Interest to Amoco Production Company, et al. v. Rejane Burton, Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, et al.549 U.S. 84Dec 11, 2006 · 549 U.S. 84Judicial power7–0Unanimous band

  16. Jeanne S. Woodford, et al. v. Viet Mike Ngo548 U.S. 81Jun 22, 2006 · 548 U.S. 81Judicial power6–36–3 band

  17. James Lockhart v. United States et al.546 U.S. 142Dec 7, 2005 · 546 U.S. 142Judicial power9–0Unanimous band

  18. Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District, et al. v. United States ex rel. Karen T. Wilson545 U.S. 409Jun 20, 2005 · 545 U.S. 409Judicial power7–27–2 band
  19. John A. Pace v. David Diguglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.544 U.S. 408Apr 27, 2005 · 544 U.S. 408Judicial power5–45–4 band
  20. Robert Johnson, Jr. v. United States544 U.S. 295Apr 4, 2005 · 544 U.S. 295Judicial power5–45–4 band
  21. Edith Jones et al., on Behalf of Herself and a Class of Others Similarly Situated v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company541 U.S. 369May 3, 2004 · 541 U.S. 369Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  22. Mark Rotella v. Angela M. Wood, et al.528 U.S. 549Feb 23, 2000 · 528 U.S. 549Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  23. Shirley W. Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs et al.498 U.S. 89Dec 3, 1990 · 498 U.S. 89Judicial power7–18–1 band

  24. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York et al. v. Tomanio446 U.S. 478May 19, 1980 · 446 U.S. 478Judicial power7–27–2 band
  25. Hadley et al. v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City et al.397 U.S. 50Feb 25, 1970 · 397 U.S. 50Judicial power5–36–3 band
  26. Crown Coat Front Co., Inc. v. United States386 U.S. 503Apr 10, 1967 · 386 U.S. 503Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  27. Soriano v. United States352 U.S. 270Jan 14, 1957 · 352 U.S. 270Judicial power6–36–3 band
  28. Parissi v. Telechron, Inc. et al.349 U.S. 46Apr 11, 1955 · 349 U.S. 46Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  29. Unexcelled Chemical Corp. v. United States345 U.S. 59Mar 9, 1953 · 345 U.S. 59Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
  30. Federal Trade Commission v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.344 U.S. 206Dec 22, 1952 · 344 U.S. 206Judicial power7–27–2 band
  31. Gardner v. Panama Railroad Co.342 U.S. 29Nov 5, 1951 · 342 U.S. 29Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
  32. Snyder v. Buck, Paymaster General of the Navy340 U.S. 15Nov 13, 1950 · 340 U.S. 15Judicial power5–45–4 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.