Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

“ Courts may not disregard a properly raised procedural rule’s plain import any more than they may a statute’s. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U. S. 250, 255 (1988) .
Here, the governing rules speak directly to the issue of Rule 23 (f) ’s flexibility and make clear that its deadline is not subject to equitable tolling. To begin with, Rule 23 (f) itself conditions the possibility of an appeal on the filing of a petition “within 14 days” of “an order granting or denying class-action certification.” ”

“ Where the pertinent rule or rules invoked show a clear intent to preclude tolling, courts are without authority to make exceptions merely because a litigant appears to have been diligent, reasonably mistaken, or otherwise deserving. ”

“ Although Lambert’s own reconsideration motion was not filed until after the initial 14 days had run, [6] he cites the lower courts’ handling of such cases as evidence that Rule 23 (f) is indeed amenable to tolling. He further suggests that there is no basis for relaxing the 14-day limit in one situation but not the other.
Lambert’s argument relies on a mistaken premise. A timely motion for reconsideration filed within a window to appeal does not toll anything; it “renders an otherwise final decision of a district court not final” for purposes of appeal. ”