Page:Nutraceutical Corporation v. Troy Lambert.pdf/5

Rh “recognize[d] that other circuits would likely not toll the Rule 23(f) deadline in Lambert’s case.” Id., at 1179. We granted certiorari. 585 U. S. ___ (2018).

When Lambert filed his petition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) authorized courts of appeals to “permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification… if a petition for permission to appeal is filed… within 14 days after the order is entered.” The Court of Appeals held that Rule 23(f)’s time limitation is nonjurisdictional and thus, necessarily, subject to equitable tolling. While we agree that Rule 23(f) is nonjurisdictional, we conclude that it is not subject to equitable tolling.

Because Rule 23(f)’s time limitation is found in a procedural rule, not a statute, it is properly classified as a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule. See Hamer v. ''Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago'', 583 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 8). It therefore can be waived or