(“Where class certification is later denied, the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable period of limitation with respect to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action”); Carlson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283, 370 N.W.2d 51, 55 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (citing American Pipe and explaining that “[c]ase law is clear that tolling starts with the filing of the action and continues until certification of the class”); Hyatt Corp. v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of N.C., 801 S.W.2d 382, 389 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (determining that class action complaints “tolled the statute of limitations on behalf of all putative [fir L.Ed.2d 357 (1981); Rose v. Ark. Valley Environ. & Util. Auth., 562 F.Supp. 1180, 1192 (1983) (<HOLDING>). But see Wade v. Danek Med., Inc., 182 F.3d
recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members holding that the initial inquiry for a court called upon to rule upon the qualified immunity issue is whether the facts alleged show the violation of a constitutional right holding that the proper focus when determining the starting point of the limitations period  is upon the time of the discriminatory acts not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts became most painful  recognizing that the appropriate focus of inquiry  should simply be upon the extent to which the claims asserted in the earlier class proceeding have in fact placed a defendant upon notice of the claims presently at issue holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims