Artis v. District of Columbia

Summarized by:

  • Court: United States Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: January 22, 2018
  • Case #: 16-460
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.
  • Full Text Opinion

The word "tolled" in 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) means that the state limitations period during pending federal litigation is held in abeyance

Petitioner refiled state-law claims in state court fifty-nine days after her federal suit was dismissed, nearly thirty days after the state limitations period would have run in the absence of federal litigation. 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) states that, “The period of limitations for any [state] claim [joined with a claim within federal-court competence] 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.” The local court determined Petitioner’s claims were barred by the limitations period. The D.C. Court of Appeals concluded that §1367 merely allows for refiling in state court within 30 days after dismissal. The Supreme Court reasoned that the legislative history does not demonstrate a reason to depart from giving the word “tolled” its normal meaning. The Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the limitations period for refiling state claims is stopped pending federal litigation, and resumes thirty days after dismissal by the federal court without a ruling on the merits.

Advanced Search