context: Because defendants were put on notice of the factual predicate for all of the potential antitrust claims -- whether federal or state-- of class members, regardless of whether they stayed in the class or opted out and filed individual actions, no "potential for unfair surprise" would be created by tolling the statutes of limitations for plaintiffs' state law claims.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 726 A.2d 967, 967
citation_a.parenthetical: "although defendants did not know of the specific claim of these plaintiffs until they commenced this suit, defendants knew within the period of limitations that if they were successful in defeating class certification, they would probably face individual suits"
citation_a.sentence: See also Vaccariello, 763 N.E.2d at 163 (when a class action is filed, “the defendant is put on notice of the substance and nature of the claims against it” as to any subsequent individual claims that might be asserted arising out of the same set of facts); Staub, 726 A.2d at 967 (“although defendants did not know of the specific claim of these plaintiffs until they commenced this suit, defendants knew within the period of limitations that if they were successful in defeating class certification, they would probably face individual suits”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 462 U.S. 353, 353
citation_b.parenthetical: once class action is filed, "[t]he defendant will be aware of the need to preserve evidence and witnesses respecting the claims of all the members of the class"
citation_b.sentence: Crown, Cork, 462 U.S. at 353, 103 S.Ct. 2392 (once class action is filed, “[t]he defendant will be aware of the need to preserve evidence and witnesses respecting the claims of all the members of the class”).