DC Circuit: James Roberts v. NTSB

The clock for a petition for fees under the statute starts with the final judgment, not with the subsequent final agency resolution.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4D6C022174310506852582C600521ED6/$file/14-1022-1739804.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Pinkette Clothing v. Cosmetic Warriors

Although laches is not available against a copyright or patent claim within the term of the statute, the Lanham Act provides a five year period to equitably challenge a mark, after which a challenge is still available on other grounds. Laches, as an equitable defense, is therefore available as a defense within the initial five year term.

No error in finding that the claim was equitably barred, given showing that most analogous state statutes of limitations had expired.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/29/17-55325.pdf

Eighth Circuit: US v. Kwame Askia

Federal embezzlement statute is not a continuing offense; once the threshold has been reached, the offense is complete.  For purpose of the stature of limitations, however, so long as the limit is reached within the relevant timeframe, the fact that the offense began earlier doe not bar the indictment.

No plain error in introduction of evidence of theft outside the statute of limitation's timeframe; no sixth amendment claim arising from pro se / standby.

Hearsay claim arising out of pretrial detention hearing moot. No 6A claim.

Sufficient evidence.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171515P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Pain Center of SE Indiana, LLC v. Origin Healthcare Solutions LLC

Anonymous parties to case are sufficiently de minimis for diversity purposes, so there's jurisdiction.

Actively supported software license is, under state "predominant thrust" test, a contract for services, rather than goods, making the UCC inapplicable.

State tort claims are time-barred, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the harm during the continuing contract.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-1276:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173943:S:0

Fourth Circuit: Shari Renee Lauflett v. Commissioner

Jurisdiction grant inside parentheticals in a prefatory part of the statute makes appeals time limit jurisdictional; in addition to plain language, the fact that collections actions can't be enjoined absent a timely filing, and agency can't collect until after the cutoff establish the reading.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171986.P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: James Humphrey v. Eureka Gardens Public Facility

A S1983 discriminatory treatment claim accrues for purposes of the statute of limitation when the plaintiff is aware of the adverse decision and capable of seeking injunctive or declaratory relief.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171265P.pdf

Second Circuit: Wilson, et. al. v. Dynatone, et. al.

Deft's registration of copyright in sound recording as "work for hire" and lack of subsequent royalty payments were insufficient repudiations of the plaintiff's rights in the composition to trigger the statute of limitations on the plaintiff's claim.


http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57bd403b-df30-4dd7-8243-9eb9a1d9f495/2/doc/17-1549_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57bd403b-df30-4dd7-8243-9eb9a1d9f495/2/hilite/

First Circuit: Cornwell Entertainment, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP

FRCP, Statute of Limitations, Choice of Law, Fees, Legal Ethics


Motion for directed verdict arguing lack of fiduciary duty did not adequately preserve argument of qualified privilege related to statements to the government for post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Where the state law holds the statute of limitations to be three years for actions seeking damages and six years in an action seeking a remedy in equity, court did not abuse discretion in assigning a three year limit to an action seeking damages for a breach of fiduciary duty.

Doctrine of continuous representation equitably tolls the limit during the transactions at issue, not for the duration of the contractual relationship between the parties.

Reasonable minds could differ as to whether the negotiation for private airplane rental was damaged by the conduct.

Remand, as general verdict makes it impossible to discern theory of initial verdict.

Plaintiff's post-trial motion for fees under law of their state is precluded by the trial's choice of deft's substantive law.

Partner's lateraling to counsel's firm from prosecutor's office investigating parties to the case who was not timely screened does not require counsel to withdraw where the new partner had no actual knowledge of the investigation.

No abuse of discretion in unsealing post-trial testimony of jurors relating to process of verdict, as the public access interest outweighs the interest of confidential deliberations.



Cornwell Entertainment, Inc. v. Anchin, Block & Anchin, LLP

Second Circuit: SRM Global Master Fund Ltd. P’ship v. Bear Stearns Cos.

Securities, Class Actions, Statute of Limitations, Fraud


Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations against individual claims during the period in which a class is certified is not available for claims of material misrepresentation under the securities laws, as the limiting statute is a statute of repose that creates a substantive right immune to common law equitable relief.

Insufficient proof of reliance for common law fraud claims.


SRM Global Master Fund Ltd. P’ship v. Bear Stearns Cos.

DC Circuit: Carlos Loumiet v. USA

FTCA, Bivvens, Statute of Limitations


Constitutionally defective exercises of discretion do not shield the government from suit under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.

The cumulative effect of continuing violations must be considered when considering when a claim under Bivvens accrues.


Carlos Loumiet v. USA

Ninth Circuit: CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN COMM'N V. MICHAEL BEAN

Environmental, Administrative, Statute of Limitations.


The APA time limit to challenge the ending of a specific agency program runs from the order terminating the program, not the order holding that the agency has the authority to terminate the program.  An earlier challenge would be theoretical.


CALIFORNIA SEA URCHIN COMM'N V. MICHAEL BEAN

Fourth Circuit: Keith Clark v. Larry Cartledge

Fed.R.App.P, FRCP


Request for additional time to file an application for a certificate of appeal may be construed as sufficient notice of appeal.

Dissent: No, and the rule is jurisdictional.


Keith Clark v. Larry Cartledge

Third Circuit: Krzyszof Koszelnik v. Secretary

Immigration, Administrative, Statute of Limitations

When deportation proceedings against alien were initiated, the agency lost jurisdiction over the subsequent naturalization proceedings, which were void from the beginning.

Statute of limitations shields the present status of the alien, but does not create an entitlement to the next step to citizenship.

Given past misrepresentations, no equitable claim against harshness of citizenship bar.


Krzyszof Koszelnik v. Secretary

Fourth Circuit: Monica Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments

Discrimination, S1981, Statute of Limitations


As the proof of nondiscriminatory motive followed the protected activity, there's sufficient evidence to go to trial on pretext.

The distinction between inappropriate comments and comments indicating animus is one for the finder of fact.

Individually time-barred discriminatory acts can still serve as basis for a timely hostile environment claim.

Broad ethnic aspersions can also suggest specific racial animus.

Totality shoudl be considered in hostile environment claims.


Monica Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments

Seventh Circuit: William Charles Construction v. Teamsters Local Union 627

Labor Law, Statute of Limitations, Arbitration

Clock did not begin to run on the time to challenge a decision of a committee authorized by a CBA until the movant received a copy of the notice of decision at the commencement of litigation.
.
Where a contract explicitly supersedes the CBA and establishes an exclusive remedy, party is not bound by CBA arbitration outcome.

Special appearance at arbitration to dispute its validity does not establish consent to arbitration.

William Charles Construction v.   Teamsters Local Union 627

Fifth Circuit: Mary Smith, et al v. Regional Transit Authority

ERISA, Agency

IRS standard is the appropriate test for determining, for the purposes of ERISA, if a private company is an agency or instrumentality of a government body, and by this standard, the private company that operates the transit system qualifies.

Deft not estopped from invoking governmental exemption, as the terms of the statute control.

Statute of limitations ran from first letter saying that some claims would not be funded.

PArty asserting discovery violation has to establish significance of the evidence sought.

Mary Smith, et al v. Regional Transit Authority

DC Circuit: Carlos Alexander v. WMATA

Discrimination

In considering, for purposes of the statute, whether someone is disabled, courts must also consider whether the employer regarded the person as either having that disability or having a record of that disability.

Under the statute, discretionary administrative exhaustion tolls the borrowed statute of limitations.


Carlos Alexander v. WMATA

Eighth Circuit: Bonnie Dick v. Dickinson State University

Torts.

State statute of limitations appropriately borrowed.

A claim alleging a denial of reasonable accommodation is a discrete instance, one that does not require a comprehensive review of the history.

Insufficient factual basis for adverse employment action claim.

Evidence outside of the statute of limitations period does not create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment.

Bonnie Dick  v.  Dickinson State University

Ninth Circuit: SELSO ORONA V. USA

Statute of Limitations, Habeas, AEDPA


The statutory one-year filing deadline for second or successive Habeas applications based on claims made retroactive to cases on collateral review is tolled by filing an application in the court of appeals to proceed with the writ, so long as the application states the claim at issue.


SELSO ORONA V. USA

Federal Circuit: FORD MOTOR COMPANY v. US

Statute of Limitations

Filing time limit in statute is not jurisdictional, as there is no specific intent evident in the statute to make it one.

No error in CIT declining to issue declaratory relief, as there are other avenues for plaintiff to challenge.

Where a court dismisses claims on discretionary grounds and some similar claims under a statute of limitations that is later held not to be jurisdictional, the court of appeals can presume that the latter claims would similarly have been dismissed on discretionary grounds.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1726.Opinion.2-1-2016.1.PDF