Equitable Tolling

1,372 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Ditthardt v. N. Ocean Condos, LP
  580 F. Supp. 2d 1288· S.D. Fla.· 2008-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that rescission claims under ILSFDA §§ 1703(c) and (d) must be brought within two years of the agreement's signing, not the general three-year period. Equitable tolling is not applicable to these claims.
• Hurley v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg.
  965 So. 2d 359· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-09-26 ·cited 2×
  The court reversed the Board's finding of waiver and remanded for consideration of whether equitable tolling applies to excuse the contractor's failure to timely request a hearing to dispute material facts in the administrative complaint.
• Levick v. Steiner Transocean Ltd.
  377 F. Supp. 2d 1251· S.D. Fla.· 2005-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the one-year limitations period in the cruise ticket contract was enforceable and applicable to the defendant concessionaire, and that equitable tolling was not warranted.
• Sabeta v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc.
  410 F. Supp. 2d 1224· S.D. Fla.· 2005-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a hospital's tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) does not create a contract with the government or an implied charitable trust enforceable by patients, and thus dismissed claims based on these theories.
• Hillemann v. Univ. of Cent. Fla.
  411 F. Supp. 2d 1354· M.D. Fla.· 2004-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the plaintiff's claims were either barred by a stipulation of dismissal, premature due to lack of a right-to-sue letter, or outside the scope of the EEOC charge.
• Cabello Barrueto v. Fernandez Larios
  205 F. Supp. 2d 1325· S.D. Fla.· 2002-06-05 ·cited 2×
  Plaintiffs, family members of Winston Cabello who was allegedly executed by Chilean military officers during the 1973 Pinochet coup, sued Defendant Armando Fernández Larios under the Alien Tort Claims Act and Torture Victim Protection Act for extrajudicial killing, torture, crime
• Pac. Harbor Cap., Inc. v. Barnett Bank, N.A.
  252 F.3d 1246· 11th Cir.· 2001-05-30 ·cited 2×
  Pacific Harbor Capital sued Barnett Bank for RICO violations arising from a loan transaction where Barnett allegedly made false certifications as disbursing agent and conspired with the borrower. The court held that PHC's RICO claim was barred by the statute of limitations becaus
• Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Oehlerking
  782 So. 2d 1017· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-04-27 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Department of Children and Families sought certiorari review of a circuit court order adjudging a defendant incompetent to stand trial and committing him to the Department's custody. The court denied the petition because the Department, as a non-party to the criminal
• Helton v. Singletary
  85 F. Supp. 2d 1323· S.D. Fla.· 2000-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that equitable tolling is appropriate for the petitioner's habeas corpus petition due to counsel's misadvice, allowing consideration of the merits, and that the analysis of ineffective assistance of counsel is ongoing.
• Antenor v. D & S Farms
  39 F. Supp. 2d 1372· S.D. Fla.· 1999-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding standing and willful violations of the FLSA, but granted summary judgment on statute of limitations for claims predating April 4, 1987 (FLSA) and April 4, 1986 (AWPA).
• Haynes v. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Dep't of Ins.
  694 So. 2d 821· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-05-14 ·cited 2×
  Robert Haynes appealed his discharge from the Department of Insurance to PERC, then withdrew the appeal based on union representatives' advice that he pursue the grievance process instead. PERC dismissed the appeal, and when Haynes later sought to reopen it after the agency refus
• Wilkin v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
  661 So. 2d 1308· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-11-01 ·cited 2×
  A cruise passenger appealed a summary judgment dismissing her personal injury claim as time-barred under the cruise ticket's one-year limitation period. The passenger argued equitable tolling should apply because she mistakenly filed in the wrong forum (Michigan instead of Florid
• Metro. Fed. Bank OF Iowa v. W.R. Grace & Co.
  999 F.2d 1257· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on asbestos abatement costs and its decision to allow voluntary dismissal of claims related to non-Minnesota buildings, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Concordia Coll. Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co.
  999 F.2d 326· 8th Cir.· 1993-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's asbestos abatement cost recovery action was barred by the statute of repose and was not revived by the asbestos revival statute because it was not timely begun. The court also held that class action tolling did not apply to the revival statute.
• Bontkowski v. First Nat'l Bank OF Cicero
  998 F.2d 459· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil RICO claim was time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations, and equitable tolling and in pari delicto defenses did not apply.
• Purrington v. Univ. OF Utah
  996 F.2d 1025· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was time-barred and that the district court did not err in finding no retaliation, as protected activity was not a substantial motivating reason for the hiring decision.
• Spannaus v. Fed. Election Comm'n
  990 F.2d 643· D.C. Cir.· 1993-04-20 ·cited 2×
  A petition for review under the Federal Election Campaign Act must be filed within 60 days of the date of dismissal, not the date of receipt of notice of dismissal.
• Hodges v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.
  990 F.2d 1030· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act was untimely filed because the six-month filing period was a jurisdictional prerequisite at the time of the alleged discrimination, and the claim was not timely filed under Title VII either.
• Gray v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  983 F.2d 954· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the EAJA fee application, but affirmed the denial of fees on the merits because the government's position was substantially justified.
• O'Rourke v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  983 F.2d 94· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for retaliation was untimely because he failed to file a timely charge with the EEOC and commence suit within the statutory period.
• The Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. v. The United States
  982 F.2d 1564· Fed. Cir.· 1993-01-06 ·cited 2×
• Walsche v. First Invs. Corp.
  981 F.2d 649· 2d Cir.· 1992-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the one-year/three-year limitations period announced in Ceres applies prospectively to all federal securities claims filed after the date of that decision, rendering the Walsches' claims time-barred. The court also vacated the dismissal of state-based diversit
• Arigo v. United States
  980 F.2d 1159· 8th Cir.· 1992-11-30 ·cited 2×
  A claimant who withdraws their administrative claim from an agency, after the agency has failed to act on it for six months, triggers the six-month limitations period for filing suit under the FTCA.
• Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co.
  977 F.2d 1549· 10th Cir.· 1992-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that individual investor claims were time-barred and dismissed, but remanded for further findings on the statute of limitations and prejudgment interest for class action claims, affirming the denial of tax benefit offsets.
• Zambrano v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  972 F.2d 1122· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction, properly extended the IRCA application deadline, did not err in ordering discovery of class member names, and correctly denied the contempt motion.
• Pacheco v. Rice
  966 F.2d 904· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 30-day period for filing an administrative complaint of discrimination begins to run when the complainant knows or reasonably should know of the discriminatory event or personnel action, not when they later discover disparate treatment of others.
• Shofer v. Hack Co.
  970 F.2d 1316· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations because the initial state court filing was in a court that lacked jurisdiction over the ERISA claims, thus precluding equitable tolling.
• Brown v. Crowe
  963 F.2d 895· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The statutory period for filing a Title VII charge is equitably tolled when procedural errors by a state administrative agency, through no fault of the plaintiff, would otherwise cause the charge to miss statutory time requirements.
• Wood v. United States Postal Serv.
  956 F.2d 493· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit based on failure to name the proper defendant and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, remanding for consideration of equitable tolling and factual disputes.
• Conaway v. Control Data Corp.
  955 F.2d 358· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Texas law does not recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress in the employment context, and that the plaintiff's ADEA claim was time-barred due to failure to file with the EEOC within the statutory period.
• Lown v. Brimeyer
  956 F.2d 780· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is not tolled while a state inmate exhausts state remedies, as the inmate controls the filing of the federal action.
• Cal. Union Ins. Co. v. Am. Diversified Sav. Bank
  948 F.2d 556· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the fidelity bond terminated automatically upon FSLIC's takeover and that FSLIC failed to present sufficient evidence of loss discovery prior to termination.
• Benford v. Frank
  943 F.2d 609· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over two appellants due to an insufficient notice of appeal and that the remaining appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies within the required timeframe, barring his claims.
• Williams-Scaife v. Dep't OF Def. Dependent Schs.
  925 F.2d 346· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Irwin v. Veteran's Administration allows for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in employment discrimination cases against the federal government.
• Lowell P. McKinney v. Waterman S.S. Corp.
  925 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's claims were time-barred due to unreasonable delay in filing after the bankruptcy stay was lifted, and that equitable estoppel did not apply.
• Brezovski v. United States Postal Serv.
  905 F.2d 334· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the EEOC's right-to-sue letter contained misleading language regarding the proper defendant, justifying equitable tolling of the limitations period. Therefore, the amended complaint naming the correct defendant related back to the original filing date.
• United States v. Metro. Petroleum Co., Inc.
  743 F. Supp. 820· S.D. Fla.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants' failure to seek judicial review of the agency's remedial order within the statutory 60-day period barred any subsequent challenge to the order's validity, even when raised as a defense in an enforcement action.
• Dr. G.V.V. RAO v. Baker
  898 F.2d 191· D.C. Cir.· 1990-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant's notice of appeal to the EEOC was untimely because it was filed more than 20 days after constructive receipt of the agency's final decision by his attorney and a designated friend.
• Robinson v. Willow Glen Acad. and/or Juneau Acad.
  895 F.2d 1168· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-13 ·cited 2×
  A voluntarily dismissed federal diversity suit does not toll the statute of limitations under Wisconsin law because the dismissal renders the action a nullity.
• Dozier v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D.
  891 F.2d 769· 10th Cir.· 1989-10-02 ·cited 2×
  The denial of a request to reopen a Social Security benefits case and extend the time for judicial review is not subject to judicial review.
• Mahoney v. United States Postal Serv.
  884 F.2d 1194· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 30-day limitations period for filing an employment discrimination action against the Postal Service under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) is jurisdictional, and failure to name the proper defendant within that period deprives the court of jurisdiction.
• Smith v. United States
  873 F.2d 218· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because they failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Clarification Act.
• MacKey v. Judy's Foods, Inc.
  867 F.2d 325· 6th Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that all franchisees' claims were barred by either the applicable statute of limitations or a validly executed release.
• Womble v. Bhangu
  864 F.2d 1212· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that failure to file an EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional defect, but that lack of statutory employer status would divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim and any pendent state claims.
• Barnard v. Commercial Carriers, Inc.
  863 F.2d 694· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the union breached its duty of fair representation and the company breached the collective bargaining agreement.
• Cook v. The United States
  855 F.2d 848· Fed. Cir.· 1988-08-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the FLSA violations were not willful, claims accrued on September 22, 1983, and affirmed the award of counsel fees.
• Brown v. Reliable Sheet Metal Works, Inc.
  852 F.2d 932· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The filing of a Title VII action in state court does not toll the ninety-day federal filing period when the state court lacks jurisdiction over Title VII claims due to exhaustion requirements.
• Aline Ervin v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  848 F.2d 1018· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for a federal civil rights action was not equitably tolled by a prior state tort claim action because the claims were legally distinct wrongs and the plaintiff did not act reasonably and in good faith.
• Davis v. Smith's Transfer, Inc.
  841 F.2d 139· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 2×
  A voluntary dismissal of a hybrid § 301 suit does not toll the six-month statute of limitations, and state saving statutes cannot override federal policy.
• Vojislav Pejic v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc.
  840 F.2d 667· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the employee's claims for breach of contract and duty of fair representation were time-barred, and he failed to establish a prima facie case for national origin or age discrimination, and his ERISA claim was properly dismissed.