CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert

2019 Unite States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionApr 27, 2026
Entity authorityQ135473777 ↗
Source-derived summary

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.

Editorial summary

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.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2019, 2015—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Nutraceutical, Corp and Lambert providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

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.

Evidence profile

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.

Critical limits

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.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert primary sources, Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert archive and Nutraceutical research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

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.