Artis v. District of Columbia | Supreme Court - "Tolling" State claims Statute of Limitations period is suspended during the pendency of the federal suit

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Artis v. District of Columbia | Supreme Court – “Tolling” State claims Statute of Limitations period is suspended during the pendency of the federal suit

Artis v. District of Columbia | Supreme Court – “Tolling” State claims Statute of Limitations period is suspended during the pendency of the federal suit

h/t Dubin Law Offices

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ARTIS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF
APPEALS

No. 16–460. Argued November 1, 2017—Decided January 22, 2018

Federal district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
state claims not otherwise within their adjudicatory authority if
those claims are “part of the same case or controversy” as the federal
claims the plaintiff asserts. 28 U. S. C. §1367(a). When a district
court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of
federal jurisdiction, it ordinarily also dismisses all related state
claims. See §1367(c)(3). Section 1367(d) provides that the “period of
limitations for” refiling in state court a state claim so dismissed
“shall be tolled while the claim is pending [in federal court] and for a
period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a
longer tolling period.”
When petitioner Artis filed a federal-court suit against respondent
District of Columbia (District), alleging a federal employmentdiscrimination
claim and three allied claims under D. C. law, nearly
two years remained on the applicable statute of limitations for the
D. C.-law violations. Two and a half years later, the Federal District
Court ruled against Artis on her sole federal claim and dismissed the
D. C.-law claims under §1367(c). Fifty-nine days after the dismissal,
Artis refiled her state-law claims in the D. C. Superior Court, but
that court dismissed them as time barred. The D. C. Court of Appeals
affirmed, holding that §1367(d) accorded Artis only a 30-day
grace period to refile in state court and rejecting her argument that
the word “tolled” in §1367(d) means that the limitations period is
suspended during the pendency of the federal suit.

16-460_bqm2 (1) by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 9102 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives