United States Supreme Court Holds Federal Statute of Limitations Tolling Provision "Stops" Remaining Time to File State Law Claims Under Applicable State Statute of Limitations
on February 15, 2018 May 12, 2020 By Carson J Tucker, JD MSEL
In a 5 to 4 decision, Artis v. District of Columbia, 199 L. Ed.2d 473 (2018), the United States Supreme Court has held that 28 USC § 1367, the "supplemental jurisdiction" statute containing a statute of limitations tolling provision, stops the remaining time within which to file state law claims if the federal suit is dismissed. The holding means that the remaining time a plaintiff had to file a state law claim under the applicable state statute of limitations is "suspended" – the Court refers to this as the "stop clock" approach – during the pending federal litigation. Thus, regardless of how long beyond the state statute of limitations the federal action may be pending, the dismissal of the federal action allows the plaintiff the time that was remaining with the state statute of limitations plus an additional 30 days allowed by the federal statute.
As Justice Gorsuch points out in his dissent, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, this means that even if the federal litigation pends for several years beyond what would have been the expiration of the state law claims, upon dismissal of the federal claim, the plaintiff has the benefit of the remaining time dictated by the state statute of limitations plus 30 days to file his or her claim.
As with the many 42 USC § 1983 claims that are brought in federal court, or really with any federal claims, like the employment discrimination claims brought here, that have, along with them, attendant state law claims over which the federal court may exercise "supplemental jurisdiction" under 28 USC § 1367(a) (the federal statute at issue in this case), this decision will allow claimants to effectively extend the time they have to refile suit in state court for potentially many years beyond the expiration of the state's statute of limitations applicable to the state law claims.
Mr. Tucker has developed a particular expertise in prosecuting and defending appeals in state and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Tucker is also a frequent author of amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in the United States Supreme Court and state and federal courts on behalf of various governmental and non-governmental entities, not-for-profit corporations, and individuals.
A significant portion of his practice is focused on appellate matters in which his efforts are directed at changing the law for a wide swath of interested parties and stakeholders. In addition to being licensed to practice in Michigan, Mr. Tucker is admitted to practice in the Eastern and Western District Federal Courts in Michigan, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Tucker has also presented for the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) on the latest legal issues in municipal liability law under the U.S. Constitution and federal legislation under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title 42 United States Code, §§ 1981, et seq., covering his familiarity and expertise on the many diverse questions that arise in this ever-changing and dynamic area of the law.
Published by Carson J Tucker, JD MSEL
Owner of law firm since July 2014; Handles all types of appellate matters and assists other lawyers with complex litigation and insurance coverage issues; Admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the State Bar of Michigan; Expertise in prosecuting and defending appeals with several significant successes in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals; Author of briefs amicus curiae in the Michigan Supreme Court for the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel and the Insurance Institute of Michigan; Represents Insurance Companies, Major International Business, Governmental Entities, Law Enforcement Officers and County Sheriffs.
Board of Directors, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel
Amicus Committee Co-Chair, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel
Military - Retired Major in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps of the United States Army, Brigade Judge Advocate and Staff JAG officer for the Maneuver Training Center, Camp Grayling, Michigan; Recipient of the Army's Meritorious Service Medal (the highest medal of honor available to Soldiers serving in non-combat roles); 2012 Graduate of the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course, at The Judge Advocate Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, Virginia.
United States Navy Reserves, Combat Warfare Qualification, January 1989 to July 2003
Former law clerk to Justice Stephen J. Markman, Michigan Supreme Court, Research Attorney, Michigan Court of Appeals. Insurance Coverage Associate Plunkett Cooney; Environmental Law Attorney at Squire Sanders, now Squire Patton Boggs; Master's Degree in Environmental Law; Environmental Law Scholar, ALI/ABA Washington, D.C., Juris Doctorate, Vermont Law School, Environmental Editor, Vermont Law Review; Treasurer and Finalist, Moot Court Advisory Board.
Posted In42 USC 1983, Appeals, Appeals and Legal Research, Appellate Lawyer, Business and Commercial Litigation, Civil Rights Claims, Constitutional Torts, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Governmental Immunity, Labor and Employment Law, May It Please the Court, Recent Judicial Dispositions, United States Supreme Court
Previous United States Supreme Court Asked to Consider Scope of Immunity of International Organizations
Next Thoughts on the Federal Constitution After Victories Over State Court Encroachments on Federal Rights