The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a copyright lawsuit as time barred, finding that the separate accrual rule does not apply to continuing harm from a single infringing act....more
The discovery rule applies to latent injuries, such that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows of or should have known of the injury. In Western World Ins. Group v. KC Welding, LLC, No....more
“A” brings an action against “B”. The causes of action asserted against “B” are all timely for statute of limitations purposes. Following discovery, “A” learns that “C” played a material role in the facts and...more
This week, the Court knocks down a party’s argument that it was “de facto debarred” from exporting activities under the Arms Export Control Act, and explains what exactly triggers the statute of limitations in Wiretap Act...more
Brillman v. New England Guaranty Ins. Co., 2020 VT 16 (Feb. 21, 2020) - In this insurance coverage decision, the Vermont Supreme Court determined that the “date of loss,” which starts the clock running on the one-year...more
Plaintiff Gene Myers (“Plaintiff”), a physician, made a claim for individual disability insurance (IDI) benefits under an individual disability policy arising from low back injury caused by wearing a heavy leaded gown worn...more
McNellis-Wallace v. Hoffman, et. al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-1488-19T1 - Brief Summary - A New Jersey appellate court held that a defendant in a malpractice case could not maintain a...more
On December 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, 139 S. Ct. 2692 (2019). The question presented is whether the three year limitations period in 29 U.S.C. § 1113(2),...more
Carroll v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 41 Cal. App. 5th 805, 254 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519 (2019) - Summary: Each alleged reduction of monthly disability retirement benefit payments for discriminatory reasons was continuing violation...more
Not so long ago, federal courts began to hold that a federal statute of limitations did not run until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of his or her claim. This is commonly called the “discovery rule.” The...more
In Melton v. Waddell, a sister sued her brother for breach of fiduciary duty for misapplying funds in a joint account and not properly allocating revenues from real estate that they owned as tenants in common. No....more
In a recent 9-0 decision issued by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS), the Court has set to rest the applicable statutes of limitations for claims brought under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3731(b) (FCA). Cochise...more
In Rotkiske v. Klemm, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to do what many plaintiffs’ attorneys have dreamed of for years: effectively expand the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations by applying the “discovery rule” to...more
The FDCPA requires that any lawsuit must be brought, if at all, “within one year from the date on which the violation” of the act occurs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The US Supreme Court will hear argument this month in Rotkiske v....more
On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485, holding that the statute of limitations for a fabricated-evidence claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 begins to run when the criminal...more
We are keeping an eye on Rotkiske v. Klemm, which is currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. This case will likely resolve a circuit split on whether the “discovery rule” applies to toll the one-year statute of...more
On May 13, the US Supreme Court (the Court) unanimously ruled in Cochise Consultancy, Inc., v. U.S. ex rel. Hunt that the “government knowledge” statute of limitations under the federal False Claims Act (FCA), §31 U.S.C....more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, wherein it recognized a prolonged statute of limitations for a qui tam relator bringing an action under...more
Health care providers, government contractors, and others who receive money from the federal government are at greater risk of suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq., following the Supreme Court’s...more
Recently, in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and clarified in a unanimous decision that the statute of limitations period for qui tam actions where the...more
On May 13, 2019, in a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held that even in cases where the government does not intervene in a False Claims Act (FCA) action, a relator is entitled to rely on the portion of the...more
In Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt, the Supreme Court expanded the time in which False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuits may be filed by qui tam relators in which the government does not intervene. The Court...more
Resolving a circuit split, the United States Supreme Court in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Hunt held that False Claims Act (FCA) whistleblowers are able to take advantage of an expanded statute of limitations,...more
The US Supreme Court issued its decision on May 13 in Cochise Consultancy v. United States ex rel Hunt, unanimously holding that the three-year tolling provision in 31 U.S.C. 3731 (b)(2) applies in favor of relators in...more
In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court held on Monday that the three-year False Claims Act (FCA) tolling provision applies in all FCA actions. In Cochise Consultancy, Inc. et al. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, the...more