Artis v. D.C.: SCOTUS Explains How § 1367(d) Stops the Clock

23 January 2018 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog
Authors: Thomas L. Shriner Jr

The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, allows a litigant with a federal claim to bring into federal court with it any state claims that are so related to the federal claim that they “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Thus, a plaintiff seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of her 4th Amendment rights could litigate in the same federal-court action any state-law claims (like violation of the state constitution, false arrest, assault and battery) arising out of the same incident. Or a plaintiff seeking damages for a racially discriminatory job termination, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, could also litigate his state-law discrimination or breach-of-contract claims in the same action in federal court.
 
But what happens when the federal claims are dismissed without resolving the state claims? Can the plaintiff refile the state claims in state court, and how long does he or she have to do so?

Section 1367(d) says that the “period of limitations . . . 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 Supreme Court today, in Artis v. District of Columbia, resolved a split among lower courts about what this statutory language means, against the backdrop of a case in which the plaintiff filed her case in federal court while there was still nearly two years left of the three-limitation period on her state-law claims (D.C. is a “state” for purposes of the statute). Her federal claim took 2-1/2 years to resolve. After the federal court dismissed it, she waited 59 days to refile in the local courts, which ruled that she had waited too long, because, though “tolled,” the local statute of limitations expired while the action was in federal court, so that she had only the 30-day statutory “grace” period in which to refile.
 
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Ginsburg (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), the Court held that when the local statute of limitations was “tolled” by the federal filing, the clock stopped running, so once the case was dismissed time began to run again, and she had the nearly two years that were left when she filed her federal case in which to refile her state-law claims. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, dissented.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services