Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Artis v. District of Columbia

Supreme Court of the United States · 2018 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSupplemental JurisdictionStatutes of Limitations28 U.S.C. §1367(d)supplemental jurisdictiontollingstatute of limitationsstate-law claims

Facts

Artis sued the District of Columbia in federal district court, asserting one federal Title VII claim and three related D.C. law claims arising from the same episode. When she filed in federal court, nearly two years remained on the applicable statute of limitations for the D.C. law claims. About two and a half years later, the district court dismissed the federal claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the D.C. claims under §1367(c)(3). Artis refiled the D.C. claims in D.C. Superior Court 59 days after dismissal, and the local courts held them untimely on the view that §1367(d) gave only a 30-day grace period.

Issue

When §1367(d) states that the period of limitations for a supplemental state-law claim "shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed," does "tolled" suspend the limitations clock during the federal action, or does it merely provide a 30-day grace period after dismissal for refiling in state court?

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. §1367(d), the instruction that the state-law limitations period "shall be tolled" means the limitations period is suspended while the claim is pending in federal court and for 30 days after dismissal, unless state law provides a longer tolling period.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Nora Bennett sued Raincrest Transit Services in federal district court, alleging one federal disability-discrimination claim and two related Washington-law tort claims arising from the same workplace incident. When she filed in federal court, 14 months remained on the Washington limitations period for the state-law claims; 20 months later, the federal court entered judgment on the federal claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

Nora refiled the Washington-law claims in King County Superior Court 40 days after the federal dismissal. Are the state-law claims timely under §1367(d), assuming Washington law provides no longer tolling period?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, §1367(d) uses “tolled” in the ordinary limitations-law sense: the state limitations period is suspended while the supplemental claim is pending in federal court and for 30 days after dismissal, unless state law gives more. Because Nora had 14 months left when she filed in federal court, that remaining time was preserved; refiling 40 days after dismissal is therefore timely. The rejected view is that §1367(d) supplies only a 30-day grace period. (Derived from Artis v. District of Columbia (n.d.).)