including those who subsequently filed their own actions or settled individual claims during the pendency of’ a preexisting class action); White v. Violent Crimes Comp. Bd., 76 N.J. 368, 388 A.2d 206, 211 (1978) (citing American Pipe and holding that, “in the case of a statutorily created right, a ‘substantive’ limitation period may appropriately be tolled in a particular set of circumstances if the legislative purpose 757, 762 (Utah 1992) (adopting class action tolling “to avoid duplication of litigation, promote justice, do equity, and generally further the judicial efficiency and economy that class actions are designed to promote”). Many federal court decisions are also persuasive. See, e.g., Appleton Elec. Co. v. Graves Truck Line, Inc., 635 F.2d 603, 608 (7th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 976, 101 S.Ct. 2058,
holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose holding that statute of repose was not subject to toiling provision applicable to statute of limitations because among other reasons it would ignore fundamental distinctions between ordinary statutes of limitations and statutes of repose recognizing that achieving litigation efficiency which frcp 23 was designed to effectuate transcends the policies of repose and certainty behind statutes of limitations holding that the legislature never intended for the dismissal and renewal statutes to overcome the statute of repose recognizing risks in construing statutes of limitations in favor of repose