In Sales v. City of Tustin, published June 8, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 3 reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendant city, granted based on the statute of limitations. Plaintiff alleges her decedent fled an improper detention, was chased into traffic, and was killed. On the last day to file a lawsuit under California law (six months after her claim was denied), the plaintiff filed a suit in federal court alleging federal and state causes of action. The district court denied a defense summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity. The defendants took an interlocutory appeal to the 9th Circuit. That court reversed the denial of summary judgment. On remand, the district court concluded that the appellate ruling resolved all of the federal claims in favor of the defendants, and entered judgment on those claims. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and dismissed them. That occurred in 2016. The plaintiff appealed the result to the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit affirmed the decision. The court then denied a rehearing en banc. The court issued its mandate on December 5, 2018. The plaintiff refiled her state law causes of action in state court on December 19, 2018. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment on the ground that under 28 U.S.C. section 1367, the plaintiff's time to file her state court claim was tolled only until the district court dismissed the state law claims in 2016.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court interpreted section 1367 incorrectly. Section 1367 governs supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in federal court. Subdivision (d) provides that the period of limitations for any state claim joined with federal claims shall be tolled while the claim is pending in federal court, and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed. The appellate court joined the majority of courts to extend the tolling deadline through the pendency of an appeal of right, through the mandate returning the appeal to the district court, and then for 30 days after the mandate. That the appeal addressed only the dismissal of the federal claims, and not the state claims, did not matter; if the federal court had reversed judgment on the federal claims, the district court might have reasserted jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Comments