The panel held that the fourteen-day Rule 23(f) deadline was not jurisdictional. Specifically, the panel that under Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), and Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005), the Rule 23(f) deadline was not jurisdictional because it was procedural, did not remove a court’s authority over subject matters or persons, and was in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than in a statute. The panel held that because the Rule 23(f) deadline was not jurisdictional, equitable exceptions, such as tolling, might apply. The panel also held that a motion for reconsideration filed within the Rule 23(f) deadline would toll the deadline.
Interested in preemption? Then you'll enjoy these opinions here and here.
Posts
