On March 31, 2025, the Western District of New York dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) claim as being time-barred. In Marion v. Transitowne Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram Williamsville, the Plaintiff...more
Under the American Pipe doctrine, the commencement of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for absent class members. American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554 (1974). The intent of this rule is to...more
On July 11, 2023, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) declined to extend its early COVID-19 emergency orders to the time limits established for filing a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against...more
As Federal Circuitry readers know, the Supreme Court in recent years has granted review in many patent cases from the Federal Circuit—like last Term’s big decision in Arthrex. But the Supreme Court also takes up cases from...more
Nicole B. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 237 A.3d 986 (Pa. 2020). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, when a fourth-grade student alleged that he was sexually assaulted in school, the 180-day period to file a claim...more
The Third Circuit recently issued a decision holding that putative class members can benefit from equitable tolling even before a district court decides a motion for class certification. Aly v. Valeant Pharms. Int’l. Inc.,...more
On March 22, 2021, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a decision by the ARB dismissing a whistleblower retaliation complaint under SOX for failure to file within the 180-day statutory deadline. Xanthopoulos v. U.S. Department of...more
On June 29, 2020, the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) upheld the dismissal of a whistleblower retaliation complaint under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) for failure to file within the 180-day statutory...more
Generally speaking, a court does not have the discretion to extend a statute of limitations. A court can, however, consistent with its inherent equitable powers, preclude a defendant from asserting a statute of limitations...more
Brome v. California Highway Patrol, 44 Cal. App. 5th 786 (2020) - Jay Brome sued the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) after resigning as a law enforcement officer, claiming he had been subjected to harassment and...more
On January 8, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California reinstated its June 2014 class certification order, holding that the named plaintiff’s full refund damages model was consistent with his...more
Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020) - The employer must pay minimum wages to employees for time spent on mandated layovers where the employer’s policy imposes constraints on employees’ movements...more
We noted earlier the Supreme Court’s review of the Third Circuit’s decision in Rotkiske v. Klemm regarding the statute of limitations for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Again, this was a case...more
A&B ABstract: On December 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the one-year statute of limitations for actions against debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection...more
Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. (2019) In a recent decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that a consumer claimant under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) has one year from the alleged violation to file...more
The Situation: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") allows plaintiffs to sue over abusive debt-collection practices within one year of "the date on which the violation occurs." 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The U.S. Court...more
The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) recently affirmed the Third Circuit’s decision holding Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations from the...more
Earlier this year, this blog reported on the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm to resolve a split in circuits on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) statute of limitations. This week, in an...more
In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Rotkiske v. Klemm that the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations (SOL) runs from the date of the alleged violation and not from a consumer’s discovery of the...more
On December 10, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Rotkiske v. Klemm, holding that, absent application of an equitable doctrine, the statute of limitations for a claim under the Fair Debt Collection...more
On December 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Rotkiske v. Klemm, et al., No. 18-328, holding that the one-year statute of limitations set out in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) begins to...more
This Fall, the California Coastal Commission (“Commission”) was handed down two significant victories, further cementing its authority and jurisdiction within California coastal zones. These cases demonstrate that, in certain...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
This month's Friday Five covers recent cases addressing: (1) the impact on the standard of review of a failure to adhere to regulatory deadlines for claims decisions; (2) foreign nationals’ ability to avail themselves of...more
Employers consider many factors when choosing whether to challenge investigatory subpoenas. They now have an additional consideration: whether a court might grant the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) more...more