Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert
2019 Unite States Supreme Court case

Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which provides 14 days for seeking permission to appeal a class certification order, is "a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule" that is not subject to equitable tolling.
Background
Troy Lambert filed a class action in federal court alleging that Nutraceutical Corporation's marketing of a dietary supplement ran afoul of California consumer-protection law. On February 20, 2015, the district court ordered the class decertified. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), Lambert had 14 days from that point to ask the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the order. Instead, he filed a motion for reconsideration on March 12, which the district court denied on June 24. Fourteen days later, Lambert petitioned the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the decertification order. Nutraceutical objected that Lambert's petition was untimely because it was filed far more than 14 days from the February 20 decertification order. The Ninth Circuit held, however, that Rule 23(f)'s deadline should be tolled under the circumstances because Lambert had "acted diligently." On the merits, the court reversed the decertification order.
The public source identifies “Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert” as 2019 Unite States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Nutraceutical, Corp and Lambert.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert”, the useful work is to connect “2019 Unite States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q135473777. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2019 and 2015.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert primary sources, Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert archive and Nutraceutical research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.