The U.S. Supreme Court case China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh centered around the issue of whether or not individuals who were previously ineligible to lead a class action lawsuit could bring forth a new class action suit outside of the statute of limitations period if an earlier attempt at certification failed. The plaintiffs in this case had invested in China Agritech and alleged that the company committed securities fraud by misrepresenting its finances and business operations, leading to inflated stock prices. They sought to represent all persons who purchased publicly traded common stock during certain periods when they believed fraudulent activity was taking place. However, two previous attempts at certifying similar classes had been denied before these investors brought their claim forward as a new class action suit beyond the initial 2-year limitation period for such claims under federal law. In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled against them with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing for an eight-justice majority (Justice Sotomayor concurred separately). The court held that upon denial of class certification, members cannot commence new class suits beyond statutory time limits because such tolling would allow endless extensions on statutes of limitations which is contrary to efficient litigation management.

In the dissenting opinion for China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision to limit class action tolling was inconsistent with prior case law and could potentially harm plaintiffs who have valid claims but are unaware of their rights or lack resources to pursue individual actions promptly. She contended that the court should not discourage potential class members from relying on existing suits rather than filing duplicative lawsuits. The justice also expressed concern about incentivizing early, protective filings in place of efficient representative litigation and undermining Rule 23’s goals of economy of litigation and protecting absent parties.