WPC=I 64RNqܝq܅{N[lPt cg=0ë3ΰo5YSgfNܟ4#9P*E%:iii0j~)ƣ&I ?/3ڲjt6]BVVޝ)j/̪kZOi޽L*@mJ,4癹s{*6py2N;<I5YZ!mtabt36޹v>THF:Ϗӎ$kCI4bbczR֊hKqX\G1 b#\ %% ^ + 07 w U$N 4 z%  q  m  y? 0DNLE#######%_!?"W%d)'A( 0U+ 0#, 0-- 0// 0?0b0 01 01 0`2/3 065 05 06 0m7 0 8 08 0t9 0: 0: 0E; 0; 0< 0b= 0> 0> 0`? 0? 0@ 0(AHAAAAAAAAAAAA 0B@CCC B%E%E 0BE D3E D-F 0KFFFF ASFF 0G 0DNH AHHP LaserJet 4250 PCL 60nk3  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular=M3:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU  TIGGGayden*intrajurisdictional P.J.Allman HendersonvilleLevanceVickieDillworthDaphneyHersehclCoffman KarzTerranceBryson URW USWASundquistHardinKaylorGuentherNat'lEntmanConley T]raditionallyCitronelleMaestasSofamorDanekCurreyCarvellMcCroskey GootGovt CasCommnBaschKorwekCalderon RaieCheminovaAmeriBankSouthwireGanousisduPontNemoursTosti MDLBlantonAssnLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   B R$      4  (  _Thisrequirementassuresthatthepurposeofthestatuteoflimitationsissatisfied.Thenameddefendantinthe  classactionsuitwillhavereceivednoticeoftheclaimwithinthelimitationsperiod.Accordingly,itwillhavebeen t providedanopportunitytopreserveevidence,gatherwitnesses,orotherwisepreparetodefenditselfwithoutthe 8 difficultiescreatedbythepassageoftime.  R$      14  (  _Likewise,classactingtollingdoesnotpermitdefendantstorecyclepriorunsuccessfuldefenses.Pirelliand  theunionsarguethatthereplacementworkersbreachofcontractandinterferencewithcontractclaimsshouldbe t dismissedbecausetheyarepreemptedbySection301oftheLaborManagementRelationsAct.Theypresentedthissame 8 defenseintheBaldwincase,andthiscourtdiscussedandrejectedit.Baldwinv.PirelliArmstrongTireCorp.,3S.W.3d L at56.Theyarethereforecollaterally_estopped_Ԁfrommakingthesameargumentinthiscase.See_Dickerson_Ԁv.Godfrey,  825S.W.2d692,694(Tenn.1992);_Goeke_Ԁ_v._ԀWoods,777S.W.2d347,349(Tenn.1989).Likewise,whiletheunions  arguethatthereplacementworkerscomplaintfailstostateacauseofactionagainstthemforwhichreliefmaybe H  granted,wehavealreadydeterminedinourprioropinionthatthecomplaintsufficientlystatesaninterferencewith  \ contractclaimagainstbothunions.Baldwinv.PirelliArmstrongTireCorp.,3S.W.3dat7.  R$      3  (  _Breachofcontractclaimshaveasixyearstatuteoflimitationsunlessotherwiseexpresslyprovidedfor.Tenn.  CodeAnn.283109(a)(3)(2000).Claimsforinterferencewithcontracthaveathreeyearstatuteoflimitations.Tenn. t CodeAnn.283105(1)(2000);CarruthersReadyMix,Inc.v.CementMasonsLocalUnionNo.520,779F.2d320, 8 32425(6thCir.1985).Retaliatoryorwrongfuldischargeclaimshaveaoneyearstatuteoflimitations.Tenn.Code L Ann.283104(a)(1)(2000);Weberv.Moses,938S.W.2d387,393(Tenn.1996). R$      1  (  _SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4750109(2001).  R$      2  (  _TheunionswerequestioningtheadequacyofservicewhenPirellifileditsmotiontodismiss.Eventhough  themotiontodismisswasfiledonlybyPirelli,thetrialcourtsApril3,2003orderdismissedthecomplaintastoall t parties. R$      8  (  _Ganousisv.E.I.duPontdeNemours&Co.,803F.Supp.149,155(N.D.Ill.1992).  R$      5  (  _Johnsonv.RailwayExpressAgency,421U.S.454,467,95S.Ct.1716,1723(1975)(notingthatthetolling  effectaccordedtothefilingoftheclassactioninAmericanPipe dependedheavilyonthefactthatthosefilingsinvolved t exactlythesamecauseofactionsubsequentlyasserted);Raiev.Cheminova,Inc.,336F.3d1278,1283(11thCir.2003); 8 Westonv.AmeriBank,265F.3d366,36869(6thCir.2001);SouthwireCo.v.J.P.MorganChase&Co.,307F.Supp. L 2d1046,106263(W.D.Wis.2004);Jollyv.EliLilly&Co.,751P.2d923,936(Cal.1988);Singerv.EliLilly&Co.,  549N.Y.S.2d654,65961(App.Div.1990). M R$      6  (  _CatholicSoc.Serv.,Inc.v.INS,182F.3d1053,1059(9thCir.1999)(notingthat everycircuittoconsider  thequestion...hasheldthatsuchtollingisnotavailable.) Z R$      9  (  _Tostiv.CityofLosAngeles,754F.2d1485,148889(9thCir.1985);InreBrandNameDrugsAntitrust  Litigation,No.94C897,MDL997,1998WL474146,at*7(N.D.Ill.Aug.6,1998). 7 R$      10  (  _See,e.g.,Whitev.Sims,470So.2d1191,1193(Ala.1985);Grimesv.HousingAuth.ofNewHaven,698  A.2d302,306(Conn.1997);Steinbergv.ChicagoMedicalSch.,371N.E.2d634,645(Ill.1977);Christensenv.Philip t MorrisUSA,875A.2d823,84648(Md.Ct.App.2005);_Staub_Ԁv.EastmanKodakCo.,726A.2d955,96364(N.J. 8 Super.Ct.App.Div.1999);_Vaccariello_Ԁv.Smith&NephewRichards,Inc.,763N.E.2d160,163(Ohio2002);Grant L v.AustinBridgeConstr.Co.,725S.W.2d366,370(Tex.App.1987).*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,    R$      11  (  _Pursuanttothediscoveryrule,thestatuteoflimitationsistolleduntiltheplaintiffdiscovers,orshouldhave  discovered,thatheorshehassufferedaninjurycausedbythedefendant.McIntoshv.Blanton,164S.W.3d584,586 t (Tenn.Ct.App.2004).*5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  - -*/+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x    % R$      7  (  _CrownCork&SealCo.v.Parker,462U.S.at354,103S.Ct.at2397;AmericanPipe&Constr.Co.v.Utah,  414U.S.at561,94S.Ct.at770;_Piney_ԀWoodsCountryLifeSch.v.ShellOilCo.,170F.Supp.2d675,684(S.D.Miss. t 1999);Arnoldv._Dirrim_,398N.E.2d426,440(Ind.Ct.App.1979).*&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x    > R$      12  (  _Thedoctrineofcrossjurisdictionaltollingpermitsthetollingofonejurisdictionsstatuteoflimitationswhile  aclassactionispendinginanotherjurisdiction.(|G2$ !.8ydd8         0  ( 6 R$      13  (  _Inthecurrentcase,thereplacementworkerswillnotbeallowedtohavetheirclasscertified,buttheywillbe  allowedtoproceedwiththeirclaimsindividually. d(|3$ !.8ydd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8ydd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ydd8     _TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letter  _RX܏3'L3'LetterT  y8XXdd8  @ PyINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#yPn#Ԉ &   November5,2004Session L XXy #yXXW#ANTHONYTIGGetal.v.PIRELLITIRECORPORATIONetal.XXy  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.02C2317HamiltonV.Gayden,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M200302118_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember22,_2005_   AV) ` dE<` A      Thisappealinvolvesadisputebetweenworkerswhowerehiredtoreplacestrikingworkersandthe   employeraswellastheinternationalandlocalunionsrepresentingthestrikingworkers.Aftera x  classactionpurportedlyfiledontheirbehalfwasdismissedbeforetheclasswascertified,someof d thereplacementworkerswhowouldhavebeenmembersoftheclassfiledanotherclassaction P complaintintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyagainsttheemployerandtheunions.The < employermovedtodismissthecomplaintbasedonthestatuteoflimitationsandthedoctrineof (x laches.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotion,andthereplacementworkersappealed.Wehave d determinedthatthetrialcourterredbyconcludingthatthereplacementworkersclaimsforbreach P ofcontractandinterferencewithcontractaretimebarredandthatthedoctrineoflachesprevented < themfrommaintainingtheseclaimsagainsttheemployerandtheunions. ( #yXX#XXy( Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversed     #yX #XX.yWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelPickens  Franks,P.J.andFrankG.Clement,Jr.,J.,joined. t F.DulinKelly,ClintKelly,andAndyL.Allman,Hendersonville,Tennessee,fortheappellants, L  AnthonyTigg,LevanceMadden,Jr.,RonaldElliott,VickieDillworth,DaphneyCecil,HerschelD. 8!  Brooks,Jr.,EugeneO.Coffman,Jr.,DonaldElliot,EricThompson,KarzMiller,andTerrance $"t! Bryson. #`" RichardL.Colbert,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,PirelliTireCorporation. $8 $ GeorgeE.BarrettandGeraldE.Martin,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,UnitedSteelworkers &"& ofAmerica,andURWLocalUnion670. '"' n  OPINION #yXX #XXy )$) #yXX\#  XXy@) I.  \+&+   PirelliArmstrongTireCorporation(Pirelli)operatedatiremanufacturingplantinMadison, 4-(- Tennessee.MostofitsworkersweremembersofLocal670oftheUnitedRubber,Cork,Linoleum  .p). andPlasticWorkersUnion(UnitedRubberWorkers).InJuly1994,theunionworkersatPirellis  plantwentoutonstrike.Pirellihirednonunionworkerstoreplacethestrikingworkersand  promisedthesereplacementworkersthattheirjobswouldbepermanentandthattheywouldnotbe  terminatedtomakeroomforthereturningunionworkersoncethestrikewassettled. t   ThestrikeendedinMarch1995whenPirelliandtheunionenteredintoanewcollective L  bargainingagreement.Thecompanybegantorehiretheunionworkersand,underpressurefromthe 8  nationalandlocalunions,begantofirethereplacementworkers.InOctober1995,threeofthe $ t replacementworkerswhohadbeenfiredfiledaclassactionsuitintheCircuitCourtforDavidson  ` CountyagainstPirelli,Local670,andtheUnitedRubberWorkers.TheysuedPirelliforbreachof  L  contractandretaliatorydischarge,andtheysuedthetwounionsfortrebledamagesforprocurement  8  ofthebreachoftheiremploymentcontracts. #  1       $    Pirelliandtheunionsjointlyremovedthecomplainttofederalcourt,buttheUnitedStates   DistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennesseeeventuallyremandedthestatelawclaimstothe   trialcourtfordisposition.Baldwinv.PirelliArmstrongTireCorp.,927F.Supp.1046,1057(M.D.   Tenn.1996).ThedefendantsthereafterfiledTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motions,andthetrialcourt p dismissedtheprocurementofbreachofcontractclaimagainsttheunionsandthebreachofcontract \ claimagainstPirelli.However,thetrialcourtdidnotdismissthereplacementworkersretaliatory H dischargeclaimagainstPirelli. 4   Thereplacementworkersappealed.Onappeal,thiscourtdeterminedthatthereplacement  \ workershadnotstatedaclaimforretaliatorydischarge.However,wealsodeterminedthatthe H replacementworkershadstatedabreachofcontractclaimagainstPirelli,aswellasaprocurement 4 ofbreachofcontractclaimagainsttheunions.Baldwinv.PirelliArmstrongTireCorp.,3S.W.3d   1,47(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).ThecasereturnedtothetrialcourtaftertheTennesseeSupremeCourt   declinedtoreviewourdecision.Noeffortwasevermade,however,tocertifytheclassactioninthe  case.OnMay9,2002,thethreenamedplaintiffsintheBaldwincasedismissedtheircomplaint  withoutnoticetotheotherpotentialclassmembersaftersettlingtheirindividualclaims.    OnAugust16,2002,elevenreplacementworkersfiledanotherclassactionsuitintheCircuit X  CourtforDavidsonCounty.Theyassertedbreachofcontractandwrongfulterminationclaims D! againstPirelliandprocurementofbreachofcontractclaimsagainsttheunions.Thereafter,Pirelli 0"  filedaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiontodismiss,assertingthatthecomplaintwasbarredbythe #l! statuteoflimitationsandthedoctrineoflaches.Theworkersrespondedthattheywerenotguilty $X" oflachesandthattherunningofthestatuteoflimitationswastolledaslongastheBaldwinclass $D # actionsuitwaspending.OnApril3,2003,thetrialcourtenteredanorderdismissingthecomplaint %0!$ basedonthestatuteoflimitationsandlaches. T #  2      ׀Thereplacementworkershaveappealed. &"%  '#& @) II.   @  TheApplicationoftheClassActionTollingDoctrine     Thereplacementworkersfirsttakeissuewiththetrialcourtsconclusionthattheirclaims t werebarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations. #  3      ׀Theyassertthatthetrialcourterredby ` decliningtoinvoketheclassactiontollingdoctrinetotolltherunningofthestatutesoflimitations L  ontheirclaimsaslongastheBaldwinclassactionproceedingwaspending.Wehavedetermined 8  thattheclassactiontollingdoctrineappliesand,therefore,thatthetrialcourterredbydismissing $ t thereplacementworkersbreachofcontractandinterferencewithcontractclaims.  ` @) A.   8    TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtfirstarticulatedtheclassactiontollingdoctrineoverthirty   yearsagowhenitheldthatthefilingofaclassactionsuittollstherunningofthestatuteof   limitationsforallpurportedmembersoftheclasswhomaketimelymotionstointerveneinthe   litigationafterthecourthasfoundthesuitinappropriateforclassactionstatus.Am.Pipe&Constr.   Co.v.Utah,414U.S.538,55355,94S.Ct.756,76667(1974).TheCourtdeterminedthatthe p doctrinestruckaproperbalancebetweenusingclassactionstopromoteefficiencyandeconomyin \ litigationandprotectingdefendantsfrombeingrequiredtodefendagainststaleclaims.Italso H observedthatfailingtorecognizeclassactiontollingwouldfrustratethepurposeofclassactions 4 becauseinitsabsence,individualplaintiffswouldbeforcedtofiletheirownlawsuitsormotionsto  p intervenetoavoidtheriskofbeingshutoutifaclasswasnotcertified.Am.Pipe&Constr.Co.v.  \ Utah,414U.S.at55354,94S.Ct.at766.Nineyearslater,theCourtextendedtheapplicationof H theclassactiontollingdoctrinetoclassmemberswhofiletheirownindividualactionsaftertheclass 4 actionisnotcertified.Crown,Cork&SealCo.v.Parker,462U.S.345,352,103S.Ct.2392,2397   (1983).     Overtheyears,thecourtshaverecognizedfourlimitationsontheapplicationoftheclass  actiontollingdoctrine.First,thepersonseekingtoinvokethedoctrinemusthavebeenamember  ofthepurportedclass.Second,thedefendantinthesubsequentcomplaintmusthavebeennamed l  asadefendantintheclassactioncomplaint.d #  4      ׀Third,theindividualclaimsmustbethesameasthe X  claimsassertedintheclassactionsuit.# #  5      ׀Fourth,thedoctrineappliesonlytoindividualsuits;itdoes   notapplytosubsequentlyfiledclassactionsuits.$( #  6          Thetollingperiodbeginswhentheclassactionsuitisfiled.Thelimitationsclockbegins t tickingagaineitherwhentheclassisnotcertified,2x #  7      ׀whenaclassiscertifiedthatdoesnotincludethe ` individualplaintiff,"  #  8      ׀orwhentheindividualplaintiffoptsoutoftheclass.%  #  9       L    TheclassactiontollingdoctrinearticulatedintheAmericanPipeandCrownCorkdecisions $ t isafederalproceduralrulewhich,whilepersuasive,isnotcontrollingonthestates.Nonetheless,  ` amajorityofstatesthathaveaddressedthequestionhaveincorporatedtheclassactiontolling  L  doctrineintotheirjurisprudence.&h #  10      ׀WhiletheTennesseeSupremeCourthasnotbeenpresentedwith  8  acaseprovidingavehicleforadoptingclassactiontollinginTennessee,itcommentedfavorablyon $  thebenefitsrecognizedbytheotherstatesthathaveadoptedtheclassactiontollingdoctrine.   Maestasv.SofamorDanekGroup,Inc.,33S.W.3d805,808(Tenn.2000).   @) B.      Pirelliandtheunionsarguethatweshouldnotrecognizetheclassactiontollingdoctrine. \ Theyfirstassertthatrecognizingexceptionstostatutesoflimitationsisexclusivelywithinthe H provinceoftheGeneralAssembly,notthecourts.TheGeneralAssemblyunquestionablyhasthe 4 powertocreatestatutesoflimitations,aswellasexceptionstothesestatutes.Phillipsv.Memphis  p FurnitureMfg.Co.,168Tenn.481,48889,79S.W.2d576,578(1935).However,thecourtsalso  \ havethepowertocreate tollingdoctrinesoftheirown.Overthirtyyearsago,theTennessee H SupremeCourtrecognizedthe discoveryruleasanexceptiontotherunningofthestatuteof  limitationsinmedicalmalpracticecases.Teetersv.Currey,518S.W.2d512,51516(Tenn.1974).* #  11      ׀  Thecourtshavesinceappliedthediscoverydoctrinetoothertortactions,Carvellv.Bottoms,900  S.W.2d23,28(Tenn.1995);McCroskeyv.BryantAirConditioningCo.,524S.W.2d487,491 t (Tenn.1975),andtocertainbreachofcontractactions.Gootv.MetropolitanGovt,No.M2003 ` 02013COAR3CV,2005WL3031638,at*1112(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.9,2005).Accordingly, L  wefindnomerittotheargumentthatrecognizingexceptionsofastatuteoflimitationsispurelya 8  legislativeprerogative. $ t   Asafallbackposition,Pirelliandtheunionsinsistthatthiscourtshouldleavethisdecision  L  totheTennesseeSupremeCourtinlightofitsMaestasv.SofamorDanekGroup,Inc.decision.As  8  anintermediateappellatecourt,wemustadheretotheprecedentsoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt, $  seePaynev.Johnson,2Tenn.Cas.(Shannon)542,543(1877),andweareobligedtofollowthe   directivesoftheTennesseeSupremeCourt,particularlyafterthe courthasgivendefiniteexpression   toitsviewsinacaseaftercarefulconsideration.Holderv.Tenn.JudicialSelectionCommn,937   S.W.2d877,881(Tenn.1996).     TheTennesseeSupremeCourtdidnotrejectthedoctrineofclassactiontollinginMaestas \ v.SofamorDanekGroup,Inc.Rather,itrejectedtherelateddoctrineofcrossjurisdictionaltolling.F #  12       H Maestasv.SofamorDanekGroup,Inc.,33S.W.3dat80809.However,intheprocessofrejecting 4 thecrossjurisdictionaltollingdoctrine,theTennesseeSupremeCourtnotedthebenefitsofclass  p actiontolling.Thus,wearenotwritingonacompletelycleanslateinthiscase.Whilethe  \ TennesseeSupremeCourtisthefinalarbiterofjudicialpolicyinthisstate,wedonotbelievethat H itrequiresagreatleapoflogictoconcludethattheTennesseeSupremeCourt,whengiventhe 4 opportunity,willholdthattheclassactiontollingdoctrineisconsistentwithTennesseeclassaction   rulesandthatitisnotcontrarytothepoliciesimplicitinourstatutesoflimitations.     Pirelliandtheunionsalsoarguethattheclassactiontollingdoctrineisfartooprejudicialto  defendantsbecauseitallowsthequestionofclasscertificationtoloomindefinitelyovertheirheads.  Thisargumentassumesthattheclassactiontollingdoctrinewouldpermitlaterclassactionsifthe l firstclassactionisnotcertified.Thisfearisgroundlessbecause,aswehavealreadynoted,the X  doctrineappliesonlytoindividualsuits,nottosubsequentlyfiledclassactions.S, #  13      ׀CatholicSoc. D! Serv.,Inc.v.INS,182F.3dat1059;Baschv.GroundRound,Inc.,139F.3d6,11(1stCir.1998); 0"   Griffinv.Singletary,17F.3d356,359(11thCir.1994);Andrewsv.Orr,851F.2d146,149(6thCir. #l! 1988);Korwekv.Hunt,827F.2d874,879(2dCir.1987);SalazarCalderonv.PresidioValley  FarmersAssn,765F.2d1334,1351(5thCir.1985).     BasedonourconsiderationofthisrecordandtheTennesseeSupremeCourtsdecisionin t Maestasv.SofamorDanekGroup,Inc.,wefindthattheclassactiontollingdoctrineisconsistent ` withTennesseelaw.Itwillbenefitthejudicialsystembyforestallingthefilingofnumeroussuits L  byprospectiveclassmembersdesiringtoprotecttheirindividualclaims,and,atthesametime,itwill 8  protectthedefendantsfromstaleclaimsbecausetheywillknowtheidentityoftheplaintiffandthe $ t natureoftheclaiminatimelymanner.Accordingly,wehaveconcludedthatthetrialcourterred  ` byfailingtoinvoketheclassactiontollingdoctrinetotolltherunningofthestatuteoflimitations  L  inthiscase.  8  @) C.      Finally,Pirelliandtheunionsarguethatevenifweadoptthedoctrineofclassactiontolling   inthiscase,itshouldnotbeextendedtocoveranycauseofactionthatwasnotincludedinthe   Baldwinproceeding.Specifically,theyinsistthatthedoctrineshouldnotapplytothereplacement p workerswrongfuldischargeclaimbasedonTenn.CodeAnn.501201(2005),whichis \ Tennessees righttoworklaw.WeagreewithPirelliandtheunionsonthispoint. H   Classactiontollingwillnotsaveclaimsbroughtbyputativeclassmembersthatare separate  p anddistinctfromthosebroughtbytheclassrepresentatives.Westonv.AmeriBank,265F.3dat  \ 36869.ItisclearthattheretaliatorydischargeclaimsbroughtbytheBaldwinplaintiffsandbythe H replacementworkersinthiscaseareseparateanddistinct.TheBaldwinplaintiffsargued 4 emphaticallythattheirretaliatorydischargeclaimwasnotbasedonaviolationofTenn.CodeAnn.   501201.Accordingly,thereplacementworkerswrongfuldischargeclaiminthiscasebasedon   Tenn.CodeAnn.501201isseparateanddistinctfromtheBaldwinplaintiffsretaliatory  dischargeclaim. #  14      ׀    Weholdthattheapplicablestatutesoflimitationsweretolledonthereplacementworkers l claimsforbreachofcontractandinterferencewithcontractassoonastheBaldwinplaintiffsfiled X  theircomplaintin1995andremainedtolleduntiltheBaldwinplaintiffssettledtheirclaimsand D! dismissedthecomplaintin2002.Becausetheremainingmembersoftheputativeclassfiledtheir 0"  complaintin2002,theapplicablestatuesoflimitationsdonotbartheirclaimsforbreachofcontract #l! andinterferencewithcontract.However,thereplacementworkersclaimsforwrongfuldischarge $X" arebarredbytheapplicablestatueoflimitationsbecausetheyareseparateanddistinctfromthe  Baldwinclaims.Accordingly,thetrialcourterredwhenitgrantedtheTenn.R.Civ.Proc.12.02(6)  motiononthegroundsofthestatutesoflimitationsforthebreachofcontractandinterferencewith  contractclaims. t Ѐ@dd) IV. L  @ TheApplicationoftheDoctrineofLaches  8    Apartfromthetollingdoctrine,Pirelliandtheunionsinsistthatthedoctrineoflachesshould  ` barthereplacementworkersindividualclaimsinthiscase.Theypointoutthatsevenyearshave  L  passedsincethereplacementworkerswerefiredandpointtointerveningeventsthatwillmakeit  8  difficulttoprosecuteanddefendtheseclaims. $    Lachesisemployed,atthediscretionofthecourts,whentherehasbeen neglectoromission   toassertarightwhich,takeninconjunctionwiththelapseoftime,causesprejudicetotheadverse   party.FirstAmericanBankv.Woods,734S.W.2d622,632(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).Courtsare   reluctanttoapplythedefenseoflaches,andincaseswheredelayinfilingsuitcanreasonablybe p explainedorjustified,thedefensewillnotbeapplied.Shellv.Law,935S.W.2d402,410(Tenn. \ Ct.App.1996). H   WeareunpersuadedbyPirellisandtheunionsargumentthattheplaintiffsinthiscasehave  p sleptontheirrightsorthattheywillbeunfairlyprejudicedintheirdefenseifthereplacement  \ workersarepermittedtoproceedwiththeirclaims.Thereplacementworkersinthiscasefiledtheir H complaintwithinthreemonthsaftertheBaldwincomplaintwasdismissed.Sincetheplaintiffsin 4 thiscasewereidentifiablemembersofthepotentialclassintheBaldwincomplaint,thedefendants   haveknownoftheiridentityandthenatureoftheirclaimssince1995.Duringthistime,bothPirelli   andtheunionshavehadampleopportunitytopreserveevidence,gatherwitnesses,orotherwise  preparetodefenditselfagainsttheclaimsofthesereplacementworkers.AsexplainedbytheUnited  StatesSupremeCourt:  8  8`   [A]tollingruleforclassactionsisnotinconsistentwiththepurposes X  servedbystatutesoflimitations.Limitationsperiodsareintendedto D! putdefendantsonnoticeofadverseclaimsandtopreventplaintiffs 0"  fromsleepingontheirrights,buttheseendsaremetwhenaclass #l! actioniscommenced.Classmemberswhodonotfilesuitwhilethe $X" classactionispendingcannotbeaccusedofsleepingontheirrights; $D # Rule23[oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure]bothpermitsand %0!$ encouragesclassmemberstorelyonthenamedplaintiffstopress &"% theirclaims.Andaclasscomplaint notifiesthedefendantsnotonly '#& ofthesubstantiveclaimsbeingbroughtagainstthem,butalsoofthe (#' numberandgenericidentitiesofthepotentialplaintiffswhomay )$( participateinthejudgment.Thedefendantwillbeawareoftheneed |*%) topreserveevidenceandwitnessesrespectingtheclaimsofallthe h+&* membersoftheclass.Tollingthestatuteoflimitationsthuscreates T,'+ nopotentialforunfairsurprise,regardlessofthemethodclass  memberschoosetoenforcetheirrightsupondenialofclass  certification.` x` x Crownv.Parker,462U.S.at35253,103S.Ct.at2397(citationsomitted). `   ThereplacementworkerswerenotsleepingontheirrightswhentheytrustedtheBaldwin 8  plaintiffstoadequatelyrepresenttheirinterests.SeeFirstBaptistChurchv.Citronelle-Mobile $ t Gathering,Inc.,409So.2d727,72829(Ala.1981).Thereplacementworkersrelianceonthe  ` Baldwinclassrepresentativesisbothexpectedandencouragedinclassactionsuits.Thus,untilthe  L  Baldwinclassactionsuitwasdismissed,theirreliancewasreasonable.Therefore,thisisnotan  8  appropriatecasefortheapplicationoflaches,andthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioningranting $  PirellisTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiononthatground.   @) V.      WereversethetrialcourtsApril3,2003,orderdismissingthereplacementworkers p complaintwithrespecttotheirbreachofcontractandintentionalinterferencewithcontractclaims, \ andaffirmdismissalofthewrongfuldischargeclaimonthegroundsestablishedinthisopinion.We H remandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinionandtaxthe 4 costsofthisappeal,inequalproportions,toPirelliTireCorporation,theUnitedSteelworkersof  p America,andURWLocalUnion670forwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.  \    `     h     ______________________________      `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,P.J.,M.S.